Who says America is not interested in Football ?

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

For those who think it's 'Mickey Mouse' over here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32956824

[HatterDon]

Well, I do, for one.

[love4ffc]

For those who think it's 'Mickey Mouse' over here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32956824

Roger, Roger, Roger.  Have you not lived in the States long enough yet to realize we don't won't the rest of the world knowing that we actually do love the game.  You're going to let the cat out of the bag and ruin everything. 
:dft011:

[Woolly Mammoth]

For those who think it's 'Mickey Mouse' over here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32956824

More like Goofy

[YankeeJim]

For those who think it's 'Mickey Mouse' over here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32956824

More like Goofy

Boo on the hairy pachyderm.  063.gif LOL

[Forever Fulham]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

[YankeeJim]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

All this is well and good. I for one would like 11 or so of that 3 million to learn some ball skills before age 25. If we had that, we wouldn't have to totally rely on fitness and desire to win matches.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

For those who think it's 'Mickey Mouse' over here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32956824

Roger, Roger, Roger.  Have you not lived in the States long enough yet to realize we don't won't the rest of the world knowing that we actually do love the game.  You're going to let the cat out of the bag and ruin everything. 
:dft011:

But you see. it's a double bluff.
I don't understand why but most people don't take me seriously so they will all think I'm joking

[HatterDon]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

We've been doing well in youth participation for more than 20 years. As for the attendance figures, take away clubs playing in venues that hold 50k, and the numbers look a little different. Conversely, ice hockey and basketball arenas have limited seating across the board -- except for one "out in the open" NHL game that always draws about 3x what the participating clubs arenas hold.

We ARE doing better, but our problem is that after youth soccer is over, only those with well-off families have a chance to get the kind of coaching necessary to turn professional. In football and basketball, college is a competitive minor league conditioning. In soccer, it's largely an indication that you've not been put into a coaching regime.

When will things change? When television figures for soccer approach those for football or basketball or baseball. That will happen when ALL MLS games can be accessed in English as well as Spanish, and they aren't listed in the newspapers as an afterthought. Once television revenues increase, salaries will increase and then the REAL change will occur. Until then, young American athletes will see what the average baseball, basketball, football, and soccer player gets in the USA, and go for one of the other three.

[JDH101]

I've (sadly) lived in LA for 10 years. They don't love football. They don't even call it football. Yes, its growing and NBCs excellent coverage has certainly helped. But you rarely see any highlights on ESPN or any word of it on the "news". I say "news" and not news, because American "news" is anything but news.

[MisfitKid]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

SWEEEET!! I was 1 of 103,432...   :yay:

[Forever Fulham]

I beg to differ.  My son was a starter on the #1 ranked USSF U-18 Academy team in the nation.  National champions.  And the year after that, national runners-up.  They went to the national soccer center in Lancaster, California one year and mopped the floor with their opponents, respectively ranked  #2, 3, and 4 in the nation at the time.  My son scored twice and had one or two assists, while playing three different positions.  At least three of his teammates went pro.   Some of the players on that team could possess and dribble with extreme skill.  The skill, ladies and gentlemen, is out there.  The problem is as was intimated above--the financial incentive wasn't there and, to the greatest extent today, is still not there.   His club team was filled with academic high achievers (both in grades and S.A.T. scores)(Harvard, Brown, Notre Dame, etc.)  Most went Division 1 NCAA schools.  But as well as they succeeded on the pitch, they were realists from mostly upper-middle and upper socio-economic strata.  They believed the likelihood of a career in English football was a poor prospect.  They'd take their full  or near-to-full rides to top universities and get their degrees while playing the game, then move on to either graduate degree programs or their first career job.  And play on the weekends in fun leagues or pick up games.  And if you asked them, many would candidly tell you that they didn't all that much care to watch games on the telly.  Play the game, yes; watch it, no.  My son still watches Arsenal play, but only occasionally.  MLS--no, unless one of his former teammates is on a squad that's playing.  That part always surprised me.  How can you play at such a high level yet not want to watch the pros play?   Me, I love watching the game.  My point is that the talent is there.  It's other things-externalities-which kill the continuation to the pros.  There is a core of kids with great early training who can play the game.  But they wander off to other things.  It's a function of economic need, I suppose.  Parents have to pony up big bucks for their children to play in club football select teams.  That cuts out most of the poor and lower-middle income kids -- the mainstay of American football, basketball, baseball, hockey teams.  Kids who aren't that invested in academics, whose family situation is more unsettled, who would rather be outside playing sports they can easily participate in rather than spend time studying.   Unless and until the Player's Family Pays scenario is replaced, the situation will only incrementally improve.  Talent will still out.  Just not in great numbers. 

[Barrett487]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

It sounds very promising for the future of football in the USA

Just for clarification
What percentage of population is 3 million? Say there are half a million Dutch kids participating (figure plucked out of thin air), then proportionally that could be a bigger commitment

Also, how many games a week do each basketball team play? What is the capacity of a basketball arena? Are you comparing weekly attendance?

[Jonaldiniho 88]

I beg to differ.  My son was a starter on the #1 ranked USSF U-18 Academy team in the nation.  National champions.  And the year after that, national runners-up.  They went to the national soccer center in Lancaster, California one year and mopped the floor with their opponents, respectively ranked  #2, 3, and 4 in the nation at the time.  My son scored twice and had one or two assists, while playing three different positions.  At least three of his teammates went pro.   Some of the players on that team could possess and dribble with extreme skill.  The skill, ladies and gentlemen, is out there.  The problem is as was intimated above--the financial incentive wasn't there and, to the greatest extent today, is still not there.   His club team was filled with academic high achievers (both in grades and S.A.T. scores)(Harvard, Brown, Notre Dame, etc.)  Most went Division 1 NCAA schools.  But as well as they succeeded on the pitch, they were realists from mostly upper-middle and upper socio-economic strata.  They believed the likelihood of a career in English football was a poor prospect.  They'd take their full  or near-to-full rides to top universities and get their degrees while playing the game, then move on to either graduate degree programs or their first career job.  And play on the weekends in fun leagues or pick up games.  And if you asked them, many would candidly tell you that they didn't all that much care to watch games on the telly.  Play the game, yes; watch it, no.  My son still watches Arsenal play, but only occasionally.  MLS--no, unless one of his former teammates is on a squad that's playing.  That part always surprised me.  How can you play at such a high level yet not want to watch the pros play?   Me, I love watching the game.  My point is that the talent is there.  It's other things-externalities-which kill the continuation to the pros.  There is a core of kids with great early training who can play the game.  But they wander off to other things.  It's a function of economic need, I suppose.  Parents have to pony up big bucks for their children to play in club football select teams.  That cuts out most of the poor and lower-middle income kids -- the mainstay of American football, basketball, baseball, hockey teams.  Kids who aren't that invested in academics, whose family situation is more unsettled, who would rather be outside playing sports they can easily participate in rather than spend time studying.   Unless and until the Player's Family Pays scenario is replaced, the situation will only incrementally improve.  Talent will still out.  Just not in great numbers. 

A very well explained point but there seem to be some anomalies. For a rich, well educated youth maybe it's not the gateway to money but football requires less money than American football, baseball, ice hockey and tennis to play to mention but a few. Boots, shin pads and one ball between twenty two starters. If poorer, talented athletes want to play a sport football is fricking cheap no?

[ToodlesMcToot]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

It sounds very promising for the future of football in the USA

Just for clarification
What percentage of population is 3 million? Say there are half a million Dutch kids participating (figure plucked out of thin air), then proportionally that could be a bigger commitment

Also, how many games a week do each basketball team play? What is the capacity of a basketball arena? Are you comparing weekly attendance?

1% of the total population. I have no idea what % of kids that is - certainly a much larger %.

[Forever Fulham]

I beg to differ.  My son was a starter on the #1 ranked USSF U-18 Academy team in the nation.  National champions.  And the year after that, national runners-up.  They went to the national soccer center in Lancaster, California one year and mopped the floor with their opponents, respectively ranked  #2, 3, and 4 in the nation at the time.  My son scored twice and had one or two assists, while playing three different positions.  At least three of his teammates went pro.   Some of the players on that team could possess and dribble with extreme skill.  The skill, ladies and gentlemen, is out there.  The problem is as was intimated above--the financial incentive wasn't there and, to the greatest extent today, is still not there.   His club team was filled with academic high achievers (both in grades and S.A.T. scores)(Harvard, Brown, Notre Dame, etc.)  Most went Division 1 NCAA schools.  But as well as they succeeded on the pitch, they were realists from mostly upper-middle and upper socio-economic strata.  They believed the likelihood of a career in English football was a poor prospect.  They'd take their full  or near-to-full rides to top universities and get their degrees while playing the game, then move on to either graduate degree programs or their first career job.  And play on the weekends in fun leagues or pick up games.  And if you asked them, many would candidly tell you that they didn't all that much care to watch games on the telly.  Play the game, yes; watch it, no.  My son still watches Arsenal play, but only occasionally.  MLS--no, unless one of his former teammates is on a squad that's playing.  That part always surprised me.  How can you play at such a high level yet not want to watch the pros play?   Me, I love watching the game.  My point is that the talent is there.  It's other things-externalities-which kill the continuation to the pros.  There is a core of kids with great early training who can play the game.  But they wander off to other things.  It's a function of economic need, I suppose.  Parents have to pony up big bucks for their children to play in club football select teams.  That cuts out most of the poor and lower-middle income kids -- the mainstay of American football, basketball, baseball, hockey teams.  Kids who aren't that invested in academics, whose family situation is more unsettled, who would rather be outside playing sports they can easily participate in rather than spend time studying.   Unless and until the Player's Family Pays scenario is replaced, the situation will only incrementally improve.  Talent will still out.  Just not in great numbers. 

A very well explained point but there seem to be some anomalies. For a rich, well educated youth maybe it's not the gateway to money but football requires less money than American football, baseball, ice hockey and tennis to play to mention but a few. Boots, shin pads and one ball between twenty two starters. If poorer, talented athletes want to play a sport football is fricking cheap no?

You're absolute right that round football requires far less cost in the kit and equipment.  However, if you want high quality training, 3x a week, plus games, at the select football level in North America, your parents have to cough up a lot of money.  I don't recall exactly how much we had to pay the club, but I think it was around $4,000-$5,000 a season.  For poorer families, that's just too much.  There were so many Hispanic kids, for instance, in South Texas, such as the metro San Antonio area, who played pickup football all day after school and on weekends.  They'd dribble, dribble, dribble, shoot at the garage door, play in the street.  They were more developed in their skills than the kids on club teams.  Until around 14 or 15.  Then the drills, the disciplined practices, the oversight and direction provided by the trainers, and the scheduled games with post-mortems, etc., etc., shifted the comparable skills advantage to the club team kids, and the disparity only increased thereafter.  My son played at different times with a few "scholarship" Hispanic and African kids who had mad dribble skills, were calm on the ball from endless hours of unstructured play.  They were creative, something many of the even better club players couldn't match.  You can drill the creativity out of a club team player.  I've seen it first hand.  The better trainers spot it in nascent development in certain players and they cultivate it, rather than try to stamp it out.  But it can be maddening to incorporate into the structure of a disciplined team.  Take Dempsey for example.  He got his flair from taking on adult Mexican men  as  a teenager in pick up games. 

[The Rock]

I beg to differ.  My son was a starter on the #1 ranked USSF U-18 Academy team in the nation.  National champions.  And the year after that, national runners-up.  They went to the national soccer center in Lancaster, California one year and mopped the floor with their opponents, respectively ranked  #2, 3, and 4 in the nation at the time.  My son scored twice and had one or two assists, while playing three different positions.  At least three of his teammates went pro.   Some of the players on that team could possess and dribble with extreme skill.  The skill, ladies and gentlemen, is out there.  The problem is as was intimated above--the financial incentive wasn't there and, to the greatest extent today, is still not there.   His club team was filled with academic high achievers (both in grades and S.A.T. scores)(Harvard, Brown, Notre Dame, etc.)  Most went Division 1 NCAA schools.  But as well as they succeeded on the pitch, they were realists from mostly upper-middle and upper socio-economic strata.  They believed the likelihood of a career in English football was a poor prospect.  They'd take their full  or near-to-full rides to top universities and get their degrees while playing the game, then move on to either graduate degree programs or their first career job.  And play on the weekends in fun leagues or pick up games.  And if you asked them, many would candidly tell you that they didn't all that much care to watch games on the telly.  Play the game, yes; watch it, no.  My son still watches Arsenal play, but only occasionally.  MLS--no, unless one of his former teammates is on a squad that's playing.  That part always surprised me.  How can you play at such a high level yet not want to watch the pros play?   Me, I love watching the game.  My point is that the talent is there.  It's other things-externalities-which kill the continuation to the pros.  There is a core of kids with great early training who can play the game.  But they wander off to other things.  It's a function of economic need, I suppose.  Parents have to pony up big bucks for their children to play in club football select teams.  That cuts out most of the poor and lower-middle income kids -- the mainstay of American football, basketball, baseball, hockey teams.  Kids who aren't that invested in academics, whose family situation is more unsettled, who would rather be outside playing sports they can easily participate in rather than spend time studying.   Unless and until the Player's Family Pays scenario is replaced, the situation will only incrementally improve.  Talent will still out.  Just not in great numbers. 

I can not be more enthusiastic about this post. I play with a few "30 something's" in NYC that played with flamini for ex and they are just part of the French crew. There are some far better. There is no lack of skill, but it's just another sport over here. Add hockey, lacrosse, American football, basketball, baseball, are more important to some. Michael Jordan may have been the best CB in history, but he played basketball.

[Logicalman]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

It sounds very promising for the future of football in the USA

Just for clarification
What percentage of population is 3 million? Say there are half a million Dutch kids participating (figure plucked out of thin air), then proportionally that could be a bigger commitment

Also, how many games a week do each basketball team play? What is the capacity of a basketball arena? Are you comparing weekly attendance?

1% of the total population. I have no idea what % of kids that is - certainly a much larger %.

OK, direct comparison time, UK/US:

Using the age group 0-14 years, this accounts for 17.3%(approx 11 M) of 63.7 M pop for UK and 19.4%(approx 61 M) of 318.9 M pop for US .

Thus, 3 M US playing football accounts for approx 5% of that age group, and the equivalent 5% in the UK would be 0.55 M.

Th-th-that's all Folks!

[nose]

i don't have any stats but when I have been in the states nobody seems to know anything about proper football, it has virtually no discernable coverage in the american media and the few people i have met that do like the game clutch hold of me to talk about what it is really like and my opinions..... I sense football is on the up stateside but a long way from being anything other than a minority event because it will be years before it has that ingrained cultural resonance of shared experience that the major sports have.

[ToodlesMcToot]

This part bears repeating:

Already, America is the number one country in the world for youth participation in football. More than three million youngsters were registered to play in 2014, compared with just 103,432 in 1974.

Crowd puller

Major League Soccer matches now have a higher average attendance - 19,148 in 2014 - than basketball and ice hockey. The game ranks third after American football and baseball.

It sounds very promising for the future of football in the USA

Just for clarification
What percentage of population is 3 million? Say there are half a million Dutch kids participating (figure plucked out of thin air), then proportionally that could be a bigger commitment

Also, how many games a week do each basketball team play? What is the capacity of a basketball arena? Are you comparing weekly attendance?

1% of the total population. I have no idea what % of kids that is - certainly a much larger %.

OK, direct comparison time, UK/US:

Using the age group 0-14 years, this accounts for 17.3%(approx 11 M) of 63.7 M pop for UK and 19.4%(approx 61 M) of 318.9 M pop for US .

Thus, 3 M US playing football accounts for approx 5% of that age group, and the equivalent 5% in the UK would be 0.55 M.

Th-th-that's all Folks!

I believe the point of that stat (3 million children playing soccer) annually has always been more of a look at how that compares to other sports within The U.S. (also as a marker of how it that number falls off as those children get older) and not as a comparison to other countries' collective interest in the sport. Possibly, it has been used recently to compare the size of the pool of players from which The U.S. can draw to other countries, though it's a little misleading.

For me, it speaks to our potential as a soccer/footballing nation. The U.S. has only begun to scratch the surface where interest in the sport is concerned. With that number of children and families choosing to introduce soccer into their lives annually, the cumulative rize in appreciation for the sport combined with the ever growing financial investment in it from a media perspective will eventually see the sport outgrow most of it's rivals in our country. Most footballing nations are saturated with the sport. For The U.S., it's unusual when people say things like "Who says America is not interested in Football?"