2014 FIFA World Cup Thread

[nevets88]

Holland. Losing to the eventual winners takes the sting out of the loss.

Oooffff.... I meant Belgium.

I disagree.

Soccer has been steadily gaining, slowly though. MLS - more teams, more viewers. NBC broadcasts the Premiere League now and FOX the Champions League. Those cities with MLS teams like Seattle and San Jose and some other cities I'm forgetting have especially loyal fans. NYC is getting another MLS team. Jürgen Klinsmann has a long term contract.

As I've gotten older, I got tired of watching the big three and find myself expanding into other sports - more soccer, even cricket. Variety is the spice of life. I know I'll be glued to the remaining matches.

[David in FL]

I disagree.

I dunno about that. I wake up here on the west coast at 7 in the morn to watch my beloved Everton each week...and i've never even been to England! Lol

There are plenty of individual fans, to be sure.  But as a nation, for the most part we just don't care.  I don't know that it's going to change any time soon either.  Our best athletes are going to continue to drift toward baseball, football, and basketball......if for no other reason than that's where the biggest and best collegiate opportunities lie.

[boogielicious]

There are plenty of individual fans, to be sure.  But as a nation, for the most part we just don't care.  I don't know that it's going to change any time soon either.  Our best athletes are going to continue to drift toward baseball, football, and basketball......if for no other reason than that's where the biggest and best collegiate opportunities lie.

LA can't even keep an NFL team.  So I agree with David.  There are too many other choices in the US for fans and athletes for soccer to even eclipse hockey in the big four sports.

[misty_mountainhop]

There are plenty of individual fans, to be sure.  But as a nation, for the most part we just don't care.  I don't know that it's going to change any time soon either.  Our best athletes are going to continue to drift toward baseball, football, and basketball......if for no other reason than that's where the biggest and best collegiate opportunities lie.

I fear you may be right but what sort of contracts can the best NFL, NBA etc players expect? I know it's only a small number of players but, at the top level in soccer now, contracts in excess of £150,000 per week (~$260,000 per week at current rates) are now not that unsual. Wayne Rooney (not that I think he's worth it!) is thought to be on £300,000 per week on his current contract and that doesn't include any add-ons. At least, that's the sort of money in the English Premier division. Huge, global, endorsements for some as well. Chances to play all round the World...

[iacas]

It's often said America only follows sports it can win at

Those people have it backwards a bit.

Americans can win at any sport, simply because of the sheer number of people we have.

But it's a catch-22. Kids tend to go into sports like baseball, football, basketball. Golf and hockey sometimes.

I think the lack of attention (i.e. which sports we "follow") comes not from "sports we can win" but rather the other way around - if for some reason the U.S. suddenly became very interested in soccer, I think the U.S. could do quite well for themselves simply due to the population advantage.

This is true of any country, too. How many basketball players does Germany produce, and could a German national team beat even the best college team you could assemble from the U.S. (given equal training and practice time to each squad)? Probably not.

America follows the sports it plays . They could win at anything. That they don't is often simply a matter of the lack of attention and, thus, the lack of people who then enter that sport.

In other words, for all we know, Dustin Johnson may have been a better soccer player than he is a golfer.

[David in FL]

I fear you may be right but what sort of contracts can the best NFL, NBA etc players expect? I know it's only a small number of players but, at the top level in soccer now, contracts in excess of £150,000 per week (~$260,000 per week at current rates) are now not that unsual. Wayne Rooney (not that I think he's worth it!) is thought to be on £300,000 per week on his current contract and that doesn't include any add-ons. At least, that's the sort of money in the English Premier division. Huge, global, endorsements for some as well. Chances to play all round the World...

But not in the U.S......

And as a point of reference, Drew Brees will be making $51 million this year.  Aaron Rodgers $49 million.  That's $3.1 million per regular season game!

MLS league minimum was recently increased to a whopping $40,000.  Compare that to MLB at $500,000.  The numbers just aren't such as to attract the top athletes away from other sports.

[misty_mountainhop]

But not in the U.S......

And as a point of reference, Drew Brees will be making $51 million this year.  Aaron Rodgers $49 million.  That's $3.1 million per regular season game!

MLS league minimum was recently increased to a whopping $40,000.  Compare that to MLB at $500,000.  The numbers just aren't such as to attract the top athletes away from other sports.

Holy c**p! Still, EPL salaries are significant as are those at the top clubs in Italy, Spain, France and Germany. With the exception of English players (which is another story), many soccer players travel around the World a lot. If they want the money and are good enough, it could be done. Not a bad lifestyle but I can see why it's difficult to get decent soccer players to stick with it, especially if they're exceptional all-round athletes.

[FarawayFairways]

Those people have it backwards a bit.

Americans can win at any sport, simply because of the sheer number of people we have.

I'm sure that's what America would like to think, and I'm equally sure there's some currency in it, but by the same logic think yourself lucky that India has never taken to baseball (3 times America's population) or China for that matter

Certainly when I was younger, in fact I think as recently as the last 15-20 years even, America was pretty dominant across a whole spectrum of sports. Not any more though. The wider picture has been one of retreat and consolidation onto the comfort blanket of domestic sport

It's difficult to keep a handle on boxing admittedly as the number of sanctioning bodies multiplied like a cell dividing, not to mention the number of new weight divisions that have been introduced, but America has long ago abandoned its stranglehold on the blue riband heavyweight division with the affect that interest has dropped right off. Having said that, if there wasn't interest still, the likes of HBO wouldn't exist and the States is still regarded as the commercial epicentre even if the focus has switched Vegas from New York and the heady days of yore

The collapse of American domiance in tennis has been one of the most remarkable retreats I'd suggest. Sampras and Agassi were the last big names, since then it's been almost exclusively Europe, with America struggling to get anyone in the top 10. Hell, even GB beat the US last year in a Davis Cup tie, and we barely know one end of a racket from another. Serena Williams is really notable for her singularity in the womens game. I don't know what the US viewing figures are for tennis these days, but I'm prepared to speculate they've gone the same way as golf

Golf of course is another example where American dominance has been challenged. The Ryder Cup wouldn't be the best vehicle to judge where the balance of power currently rests, and world rankings aren't without their accounting question marks too, but the days of American hegemonic dominance have been gone for  a couple decades. But doesn't this make for more compelling viewing? Most people would say yes, competition is good etc so why do viewing figures fall then?

Michael Johnson spends enough time in the UK now lamenting the collapse of track athletics as a sport which he now regards as all but finished in the US. In the London Olympics something remarkable happened in the 400m, America didn't have a finalist (unheard of) and with a supreme piece irony, Belgium had two! America only won the single mens track Olympic gold medal (less than the UK - or Mo Farah to be more precise) albeit the American women ensured that the US topped the table. America has of course endured more than its fair share of positive tests in track and field, and I don't know if this is an issue, but then we've also seen that the advances made in road cycling were hardly achieved on the level either. Come to think of it, you can moan about diving in football (quite rightly I believe) but when it comes to playing fair I'm not sure major league baseball can claim to be a paragon of virtue either.

What's caused America to lose interest in so many of these sports? I know the deniers for golf point to economic issues (even though the clear NGF data points to the decline having started long before the credit crunch). Also the last data I saw didn't show that it accelerated in the credit crunch either, but pretty well maintained a direction of travel that it was already on.

I was given to understand that Canada were the better ice hockey team anyway (or is that Canadian propoganda?).

Is it too simplistic to suggest that greater competition and the loss of dominance has caused a general public to turn away and watch domestic sport instead where there isn't any meaningful international challenge?. I suspect that such an explanation is too simplistic myself, and that there's likely a multitude of different causes, but I'd suggest that it's across the board, so it looks like being something more systemic or cultural. Equally I suspect that its complacent self regard bordering on delusional to suggest that we could win at anything if we could be bothered (I paraphrase). Well there's always a way of proving that. I think you could argue effectively that 'we used to be able to win at things when we were bothered ' but then Rome used to have a very powerful empire.

I do wonder if somewhere along the line America has increasingly fused sport (in the athletic sense) with entertainment, and what i can only describe as non sports have taken root on prime time, and eclipsed others which are perhaps more participatory in their appeal?. WWF? Monster Truck racing? Celebrity boxing/ contenders etc One also suspects to that like most western countries there will be an increasing decadance among younger cohorts, or perhaps that's me getting older and making the age homoured mistake of rose tinted reflection

I think that overall your hypothesis is still likely to be correct, and at the very least America would be a lot more competitive, but I suspect you'd find it harder to win and dominate than you think. There are many more countries engaged in the mainstream international sports than used to be the case, and as those countries get richer themselves, they'll acquire adequate facilities.

[FarawayFairways]

Holy c**p! Still, EPL salaries are significant as are those at the top clubs in Italy, Spain, France and Germany. With the exception of English players (which is another story), many soccer players travel around the World a lot. If they want the money and are good enough, it could be done. Not a bad lifestyle but I can see why it's difficult to get decent soccer players to stick with it, especially if they're exceptional all-round athletes.

I believe the figures quoted come from the Forbes list for 2013?

Beckham was eighth (despite no longer playing) Ronaldo was ninth, and Messi was tenth. That puts all three of them ahead of any baseball player, albeit baseball clearly has depth that football can't match

http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/earnings/athletes-paid-2013.htm

I'm not so sure how many of these mega paid American athletes would be suited to football anyway? So I'm not sure that quite so many are lost as you might popularly imagine.

Your basketball players certainly would struggle on height, and the two quarterbacks weigh between 16 and 15 stone. They'd be taken off their feet in football and constantly be about 5 seconds behind play carrying that kind of bulk. Now it's fair to assume they've deliberately been bulked and will have trained and been body conditioned at a much younger age I assume. But if 15 stone is their natural weight, then they'd be too slow for football anyway, so they wouldn't necessarily have been lost to it, as they'd never have been good enough in the first place

I'm sure some players are lost, probably recievers andcorner backs, special teamers, perhaps a safey here and there, but I doubt it's likely to be as many in reality, and the types of players who would support these positions aren't likely to be the mega earners i'd have thought (although I'm sure Jerry Rice wasn't short of a few bucks)

[jamo]

There are plenty of individual fans, to be sure.  But as a nation, for the most part we just don't care.  I don't know that it's going to change any time soon either.  Our best athletes are going to continue to drift toward baseball, football, and basketball......if for no other reason than that's where the biggest and best collegiate opportunities lie.

Obviously it's not going to be overnight, but soccer is growing and I think that's only going to speed up. Both MLS and EPL games are getting easier to watch on TV and online. MLS attendance is [URL=http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/12/mls-soccer-nfl-nba-mlb-nhl-epl-business]above hockey and basketball[/URL], in part because you can cram more fans into a soccer stadium than a hockey arena. Soccer appeals more to growing demographics (young people, hispanics), while baseball looks to be shrinking and who knows what could happen with football because of concussions. It's only going to grow, I think, as sports like baseball and football slowly contract in relevance. [quote name="FarawayFairways" url="/t/73308/2014-fifa-world-cup-thread/900_30#post_1014420"] I'm sure that's what America would like to think, and I'm equally sure there's some currency in it, but by the same logic think yourself lucky that India has never taken to baseball (3 times America's population) or China for that matter [/quote] The obvious difference there is money, no? [quote name="iacas" url="/t/73308/2014-fifa-world-cup-thread/900_30#post_1014341"] This is true of any country, too. How many basketball players does Germany produce, and could a German national team beat even the best college team you could assemble from the U.S. (given equal training and practice time to each squad)? Probably not. [/quote] Dirk Nowitzki and then ... that's about it.

[misty_mountainhop]

I believe the figures quoted come from the Forbes list for 2013?

Beckham was eighth (despite no longer playing) Ronaldo was ninth, and Messi was tenth. That puts all three of them ahead of any baseball player, albeit baseball clearly has depth that football can't match

http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/earnings/athletes-paid-2013.htm

I'm not so sure how many of these mega paid American athletes would be suited to football anyway? So I'm not sure that quite so many are lost as you might popularly imagine.

Your basketball players certainly would struggle on height, and the two quarterbacks weigh between 16 and 15 stone. They'd be taken off their feet in football and constantly be about 5 seconds behind play carrying that kind of bulk. Now it's fair to assume they've deliberately been bulked and will have trained and been body conditioned at a much younger age I assume. But if 15 stone is their natural weight, then they'd be too slow for football anyway, so they wouldn't necessarily have been lost to it, as they'd never have been good enough in the first place

I'm sure some players are lost, probably recievers andcorner backs, special teamers, perhaps a safey here and there, but I doubt it's likely to be as many in reality, and the types of players who would support these positions aren't likely to be the mega earners i'd have thought (although I'm sure Jerry Rice wasn't short of a few bucks)

Interesting about body shapes in classic U.S. sports cf . soccer (I use that word due to the majority audience here), but they aren't "mine"! I would imagine some of the more talented athletes with a more classic soccer body shape have simply moved into other careers in the past when soccer was amateur and early pro in the U.S. If the pay was that low in the past then you could do a lot of things and earn more while playing soccer for recreation. Maybe in the not so distant future, they'll stick with soccer and then who knows what'll happen?

[Abu3baid]

[quote name="David in FL" url="/t/73308/2014-fifa-world-cup-thread/900_30#post_1014326"] There are plenty of individual fans, to be sure.  But as a nation, for the most part we just don't care.  I don't know that it's going to change any time soon either.  Our best athletes are going to continue to drift toward baseball, football, and basketball......if for no other reason than that's where the biggest and best collegiate opportunities lie.

Obviously it's not going to be overnight, but soccer is growing and I think that's only going to speed up. Both MLS and EPL games are getting easier to watch on TV and online. MLS attendance is [URL=http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/12/mls-soccer-nfl-nba-mlb-nhl-epl-business]above hockey and basketball[/URL], in part because you can cram more fans into a soccer stadium than a hockey arena. Soccer appeals more to growing demographics (young people, hispanics), while baseball looks to be shrinking and who knows what could happen with football because of concussions. It's only going to grow, I think, as sports like baseball and football slowly contract in relevance. [quote name="FarawayFairways" url="/t/73308/2014-fifa-world-cup-thread/900_30#post_1014420"] I'm sure that's what America would like to think, and I'm equally sure there's some currency in it, but by the same logic think yourself lucky that India has never taken to baseball (3 times America's population) or China for that matter [/quote] The obvious difference there is money, no? [quote name="iacas" url="/t/73308/2014-fifa-world-cup-thread/900_30#post_1014341"] This is true of any country, too. How many basketball players does Germany produce, and could a German national team beat even the best college team you could assemble from the U.S. (given equal training and practice time to each squad)? Probably not. [/quote] Dirk Nowitzki and then ... that's about it.[/quote] I fail to see how money is what is preventing India from getting into baseball? They play cricket and by all means it is close enough in my opinion.. Also in terms of athletic ability I have spoken with several people that played both and according to them cricket is harder.. In terms of basketball I would say that the Germans are too busy manufacturing their soccer playing machines, and if they were to go full force into basketball they would easily be able to compete.. Have you seen those guys??

[FarawayFairways]

The obvious difference there is money, no?

I'd say so, although you might drill that down a little bit as I'm sure a bigger issue concerns how that money is distributed. I can't necessarily see that anyone becomes a proportionately better player at any given sport for being paid an astronomical salary, but clearly if there's money in a game, and that money is wisely distributed into development programmes and training etc then you become better. I have little doubt that India would squander any windfall they ever got as their own sport is mired in corruption, but then for scale, the New York Yankees are worth more than the entire IPL combined.

The issue of China is perhaps more complicated given that its a different system, and I suppose (with a sense of irony) that they now own so much US government debt I'm not sure who has got the money now? If they haven't you haven't either!!!

[Golfingdad]

Goal of the tournament so far???

I think it's a safe bet that the "contenders" are Van Persie's header against Spain:

Tim Cahill's volley against the Dutch:

Or James Rodriguez against Uruguay on Saturday:

Of those 3, I think I like the "Ha-mess" goal the best, but I'm actually going off the board for this.  My favorite so far is Germany's first goal (Andre Schurrle, I think??) against Algeria on Monday.  Can't find a decent video, but although it's certainly not as "spectacular" as the others as far as power or distance goes, but it was brilliant, nonetheless.  (And I believe that it could fall under the category of "cheeky" as well ;))

[FarawayFairways]

One for Abu to chase down (I hope I'm right) I've got a recollection of Saudi Arabia winning goal of the tournament once, albeit I couldn't tell you who or the year off the top of my head. It was a thunderous long range shot though easily better than anything seen so far in 2014.

Of those candidates you've put up though, I think I'll go for the Aussie Van Basten goal

[Abu3baid]

The columbian goal was the best in my opinion that I have seen yet this cup.. The goal you mention faraway is from 98 and it was him taking it from midfield to the goal.. I looked it up and it was against the belgiums.. Right up there with the 86 maridona goal.. So have all of you decided who to root for? I for one can't wait to see Fridays games.. I feel like those two games will be epic!

[nevets88]

Goal of the tournament so far???

I think it's a safe bet that the "contenders" are Van Persie's header against Spain:

Tim Cahill's volley against the Dutch:

Or James Rodriguez against Uruguay on Saturday:

Of those 3, I think I like the "Ha-mess" goal the best, but I'm actually going off the board for this.  My favorite so far is Germany's first goal (Andre Schurrle, I think??) against Algeria on Monday.  Can't find a decent video, but although it's certainly not as "spectacular" as the others as far as power or distance goes, but it was brilliant, nonetheless.  (And I believe that it could fall under the category of "cheeky" as well ;))

That was a cool goal.  He snuck swept that in with his back heel. No speed, all guile. Very clever. Do they practice that or is it instinct?

I'd embed it but >limit.

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/06/Andr%C3%A9-Sch%C3%BCrrle-1-1.gif

https://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/schurrle.gif

http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/andrc3a9-schc3bcrrle-goal-against-algeria-a1.gif?w=1000

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/06/Andr%C3%A9-Sch%C3%BCrrle-1-2.gif

[FarawayFairways]

Put "Eddie Grey Leeds versus Burnley 1970" into google for a youtube of the ultimate individual goal. It's much harder to score this type of goal (the second one) than one of those where you run straight on at the defence and always have the potential ally of momentum with you