Talk:Soccer in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tcharubin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oldest Team

"t is often claimed that the Oneida Football Club of Boston, founded in 1862 was the first club to play soccer outside the United Kingdom. However, the club could not have been playing soccer, as they were formed before The Football Association formulated the rules in England"

What a bunch of British anti-American BS, both Durham FC and Sheffield FC are completely accepted as the oldest clubs in Britian, and both were formed 1850's. Here is a news flash for you, people were playing football/soccer (albeit maybe by another name, but again look at the FC in the two mentioned) long before the FA rules were created - in fact people were playing the sport long before it came to the Britian and evolved into the modern game. But that is another story

-- Clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clayton - it's spelled BRITAIN not Britian, really poor form misspelling another country's name like that. And there's a difference between ancient people kicking things around and it actually evolving into a real sport, which happen in England plain and simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.36 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

-- It's hard to pinpoint the origin of soccer out of its many predecessor games, so many take the founding of the FA institutionally as a definite origin. This is probably as unjust as taking the RFU as the origin of rugby would be, but at least it's a little easier to distinguish games that were fairly definitely rugby from those which were fairly definitely soccer before the FA. Most sources credit Sheffield and Cambridge rules, so it would not be out of bounds to count those as "soccer". Unfortunately there's a tendency to conflate all mostly-kicking games of the time with soccer, as was seen in this Wikipedia entry before I got here. What was played in North America before the 1880s was mostly local forms of the same variety of football as in the British Isles. Even the founding of the FA did not immediately eradicate town ball even in England, let alone North America. 24.115.43.141 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul Reorganization

Sorry to intrude, but I didn't want this comment to go unnoticed. I think the one and only image on this page needs to be either 1) replaced with an image of adults playing the sport and moved to a corresponding area describing the sport's popularity among youth or 2) removed altogether. Articles for American Football, Basketball, Baseball, and Ice Hockey all include introductory images of adult participants and/or professional stadiums. This image only perpetuates the stereotype that soccer is merely a child's sport in the U.S. --Amavel 18:55, 22 June 2007

It really is interesting that there is no picture of adults playing football/soccer. strahli82 23:13, 29 October 2007 (CET)

According to the Wikipedia article on The Home Depot Center stadium in Carson, CA, it's the "Cathedral of Soccer" in the United States. It might be a fitting primary/introductory photograph for this article. Although, the photos included in the HDC's article aren't top-notch; I would recommend finding an aerial view that includes the the roof, grass hill, and the connected tennis stadium.--Beach blvd (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found the image used in association football is one of adults playing and will change it. I agree with Amavel in that it only fuels the youth only sterotype. Greecepwns (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing "stereotype" with statistical truism. The % of adults who participate and/or patronize soccer in the United States is minuscule compared to just about every other sport...whereas at the youth level, the numbers are much more competitive. In other words, you wish to engage in propaganda. This is the problem with Wikipedia and people like you - the goal of the article is not to "inform" so much as to attempt to change minds to match what you wish. Ridiculous.

MLS attendance record

After doing a Google search and looking through Major League Soccer's history timeline, I was unable to find any sources to back up the claim that "MLS broke its all-time record for attendance at a regular-season match, which saw over 92,000 spectators fill the L.A. Coliseum" and let alone in 2006. Perhaps the contributing author confused this statement with the double-header match on 16 June 1996 between the national teams of USA and Mexico and later a MLS matchup between the Los Angeles Galaxy and the now defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny. The doubleheader had 92,216 in attendance. Source: http://www.mlsnet.com/about/. --Amavel 19:20, 22 June 2007

The editor is probably referring to the Aug 6, 2006 match between Chivas & New England which drew 92,650.[1] This match was the first of a double header that also featured Guadalajara vs. FC Barcelona. --D. Monack | talk 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Soccer's unpopularity in the U.S.

I don't really like these sentences:

Among many Americans, there's a preference for high scoring, time-outs, and individual performances. In addition, many "anti-soccer Americans" view it as too simple and claim that the reason why it's so popular worldwide is that "most countries can't afford to play anything else" (which is a not too accurate comment; the national sport of Third World countries Nicaragua, Cuba, & the Dominican Republic is baseball, and ice hockey is popular in relatively under-developed Russia).

I don't think fans of other sports like timeouts. I think what they like are sports that go in fast bursts rather than slower, more marathon-like sports. It just happens that "timeouts" (actually, "stoppages of play" would be a better term) are one reason why most American sports go faster than soccer does. It's not the only cause. In the case of ice hockey, unlimited substitution allows fresh legs to be on the ice all the time.

Secondly, I don't think a preference for individual performances has anything to do with it. Soccer has plenty of individual performances, and American football tends to play down individualism.

I think if you ask most Americans what they think of soccer, they would say, "It's boring." Why Americans think soccer's boring and other people don't is beyond me, but I would guess it has something to do with the speed of play as discussed above.

I also would cut the unattributed statement about Americans attributing soccer's popularity in other countries to economic factors. I have never heard anyone say that. -- Mwalcoff 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That last big paragraph is crap. I deleted that first line all together. I agree with everything you have written above. I wouldn't throw the boring bit into the article because that will cause a big to do over nothing. If no one lese chimes in for reason why this paragraph should remain as is i am going to chop a big chunk of it tomorrow

Some people say that Soccer is one of the few professional sports where 0-0 ties are by no means rare ;-) AnonMoos 03:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this: Many writers have speculated on why soccer is not as popular in the U.S. as it is in other countries. Theories include that other sports cornered the market before professional soccer could prosper; that soccer is a "foreign game" [see history for link]; that Americans do not dominate the game; that there are too many draws; and that there is not enough scoring [see history for link].

A common complaint among Americans is that soccer is "boring." In the "big four" major American team sports of American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey, the action is considerably faster than that of soccer, although it is punctuated by many stoppages of play.

Mwalcoff 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Americans do not dominate the game" - you sure about that? Check the US Women's results. Americans do, for the most part consider it a womans sport which means they would judge it based on those results. From the American perspective they DO dominate the sport. - Clayton

Why not link to the original URL http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1270849,00.html instead of a redirect to Google cache? AnonMoos 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I'd hate for the Guardian to get the hits :) -- Mwalcoff 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the paragraph you have put together. It is alot more objective than I could have written. I'd say post it. If only there was a way to mention that watching Italian, Spanish & South Amereican player drop like they were hit with a shotgun after someone bumps into them is completely foriegn to our culture. If you are carted of the field and you come back on in two minutes your career would be over. I'll give the EPL and their fans credit because the don't play that game but Spanish and Italian professional soccer matches are almost unbearable to watch because of the faking of injuries. Shameful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

It would also be pointless to say that since all that diving and rolling around started with English players and it still just as common with them as anywhere else. That nonsense radiated out from England not the other way around. Watch the game between England and Hungary in 1953 and watch all the English players diving and rolling around and the Hungarians standing there wondering what they are doing. Billy Wright and Merrick both looked like gravity was shifting on them everytime a Hungarian got near them. Also, consider that was BEFORE you could even be carded for it. - Clayton

The earliest explanation I've heard for soccer's lack of popularity as a spectator sport in the US is that it is not heavily promoted by American television, because its lack of timeouts does not allow for a lot of commercials.Bostoner (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Americans in general like hand eye coordination games.Bronzepen (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is the most popular recreational sport for both boys and girls..." - is that accurate, taking into account the lack of popularity accentuated in the article? And what is the source? Juozas Rimas (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize it was called Soccer in England first, before it was known as football right? Yes, Americans, South Americans, Canadians and Austrialians all call it Soccer for a reason. You also realize the game derives from an ancient sport that was brought to the Britians from other countries. -- Clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You do realise it is never call that other word in BRITAIN (2nd stupid mistake - not Britian as above). As stated, you really are dumb if you think Football was invented by any other country. Oh BTW, baseball is a British invention, not American - now that is an absolute FACT.

Just noticed you can't spell Australians either! And they do call it football actually without confusion or the need to make daft comments here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.36 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

User:D Monack has twice removed the sentence about American sports being faster than soccer, which I had included in trying to explain why so many Americans find soccer boring.

Is there really any doubt that while the ball is in play, American football, baseball, basketball and hockey are much faster than soccer? -- Mwalcoff 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I'll concede that ice hockey is the fastest sport followed by baseball. As for the others, it depends on how you judge. If you go by the speed of the players, all pro athletes a equally quick on their feet. As for ball speed, soccer's top speeds are just as fast as American football and probably faster than basketball. I just don't think speed adequately explains most Americans' indifference to soccer. --dm ^(talk) 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... First let me say that I'm not trying to diss soccer here. However, I think that it's inevitable that the average speed of gameplay in soccer is much slower in soccer than in American football or basketball, simply because of the paucity of stoppages of play and substitutions. In football, the players run at full speed, then stop, then run at full speed again, then leave the game until called upon again. In soccer, most players are on the field for more than 90 minutes with only halftime as a break.

I dont see how you get "fast" from stopping and starting... that is what makes american football boring... commercial breaks. Most of American football and baseball are just most of the players standing still. In (real) football everybody (except the subs) move all the time. Chandlertalk 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which sport is the fastest, it certainly seems to many Americans that soccer is slow. That's Bob Novak's complaint in the Crossfire transcript I link to. This American writer says she's heard "a million and one complaints" about soccer being slow and boring. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The line I took out read, "In the "big four" major American team sports, the action is considerably faster than that of soccer, although it is punctuated by many stoppages of play." It says nothing of Americans' perceptions and is inaccurate. While it's true that many Americans perceive soccer to be slower than other sports, their perceptions are only that. Also, only a few football players are running at full speed on any given play. Bob Novak is hardly a sports expert and the second writer is using hyperbole when he says he's heard "a million and one" complaints.

I believe most Americans call soccer boring or slow as an excuse because they don't understand the sport and they have no interest in learning more about it (as is their right). Soccer at the professional level is just as fast, on average, as any NFL game and definitely faster than the NBA. --dm ^(talk) 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if I put the sentence back but add the word "seem" before "considerably faster?" -- Mwalcoff 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to whom? It doesn't seem that way to me. To say that soccer seems slow to some Americans would water down the sentence to the point where it is meaningless. The same could be said of any sport. I suspect that most people who say that soccer "seems slow" have never actually seen professional soccer. --dm ^(talk) 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to explain why so many Americans think soccer is "boring," especially since sports fans in most other countries think it's the most exciting thing ever. In my experience, American soccer-haters think soccer is boring because it seems slow. If you do a Usenet search on "soccer slow boring," you'll find lots of Americans who say soccer is slow and boring (and lots of soccer people saying American sports are slow and boring). I admit that I'm one of those people to whom soccer does seem slow and boring -- perhaps because I don't appreciate the game. I mean, to my eyes, you turn on a soccer game, and nine times out of ten the players seem to be jogging around, kicking the ball back and forth to each other, and when they do kick the ball down the field, it seems to float in the air for an eternity. This seems slow, because I'm used to watching baseball games, where the ball goes 100 MPH, or football games, when the players ram into each other at full speed on every play. -- Mwalcoff 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should analyze why Americans find soccer boring. That's a psychological question that no one can answer definitively. I assure you that people unfamiliar with football and baseball find those sports just as boring. Akin to your comment about soccer being merely "kicking the ball back and forth", football seems to many soccer fans to be little more than a bunch of overweight men running into each other and falling down. Also, I think speed has little to do with how interesting a sport is. NASCAR is far faster than anything we've discussed, but many people, myself included, find it duller than dishwater. Golf is one of the slowest sports there is, but it is more popular than soccer in the U.S. I think it would be wrong to imply that any sport is inherently boring. --dm ^(talk) 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The golf ball is very fast though! :D (faster than baseballs?). Chandlertalk 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was not that soccer is slow and boring but rather that it seems that way to the non-fan. For our purposes here, whether non-fans of baseball and football find those sports boring is irrelevant. I do think that, considering the pecularity of many Americans' thoughts on soccer, it's important to explain why so many Americans think the way they do. To simply say, "A common complaint among Americans is that soccer is 'boring'" and not explain that any further leaves a big gap. -- Mwalcoff 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[<--moving leftward]
That's all that can factually be said about it. There are no scientific studies on this. I don't think most anti-soccer people themselves are even sure why they find it boring. Any conjecture on this is the dreaded original research. --dm ^(talk) 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Oh, and just for fun: This page says soccer players (other than the goalie) average 7 kilometers per hour during a game. At that speed, it would take an NFL wide receiver 9.4 seconds to run a 20-yard fly pattern and 47 seconds for Dante Hall to run a kickoff back 100 yards. Needless to say, wide receivers on a pass pattern run much faster than the average soccer player. But offensive linemen would be a different story. -- Mwalcoff 05:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and what is the average speed of the NFL players sitting on the bench for half of the game? that has to drag it down a bit?... There are services that follows football (not american) matches close (at least here in Sweden) to show stats, for how long distance they ran, top speed etc. and most players top speeds are 25-30 km/h (16-19mph) Chandlertalk 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is apples and oranges. As you mentioned before, even when on offense a wide receiver is just standing around a lot of the time between plays, though the clock is counting down for much of this so one has to count it as game time. Soccer forwards may avg. 7 km/hr over 90 minutes but they are frequently running sprints and plays similar to a fly pattern and midfielders make long runs down the sidelines at speeds similar to a kickoff return. --dm ^(talk) 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The average speed is fairly meaningless to the discussion of "soccer = slow/boring vs. fast football". There is less actual game time in a football game, but almost always a great deal more scoring, and the game is very rarely a draw - this is more important than whatever speed the athletes happen to be moving at. Soccer players could be running sprints the entire game, but if the scoring stayed the same, I don't think it would matter. --71.225.229.151 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The only things that should be here on why soccer is unpopular in the US are supported statements reported in the media, preferably in the form of a study and not just a throwaway line. It doesn't matter what they say, but right now the article reads as original research. "Another factor... In the decades hence, more and more... The result is..." all need citations. IMO, most of this is bunk psychology anyway, like trying to explain why disco became popular. --Tysto 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just have to add, since this has not been mentioned, but one of the reasons why soccer is so exciting to people outside the US, BECAUSE there are often DRAWS or 0-0 games. This is what creates so much TENSION, and why it makes it so EXCITING when your team scores. Further more, this creates a status when two teams compete, any off them have any chances of winning, even with very large gaps. To put this in parallel to a basket ball, when your team scores, it's like "whoop-dee-doo, big whoop". Or in american football, the scorer does a little dance or something, and then they leave it at that. In soccer, the entire team/stadium will go crazy for like 5 minutes. I really believe it has nothing to do with the speed of the game.(PS, not saying anything is better than anything else here, just wanted to say why I think people find soccer exciting, myself included)Happypal 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, one goal in "Soccer" is much more important than in American football, that's why you may see much defensive play. But when you get a goal, its always much more celebrated by the players/fans. Chandlertalk 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete load of BS, a 0-0 game is boring to all sets of fans, in Europe or not. I watch the EPL every single weekend and if the game is 0-0 you can bet they will be talking about what a bad and boring game it is on Soccer Saturday. Chandler that crap about Swedish sources tracking the movements of the atheletes is just that crap. I am a diehard supporter of FA Football and do not watch much else but having attended a NFL game I can tell you beyond any doubt that the speed of the players on the field, the only ones that matter, are so much faster than any is even capable of moving while playing FA football it is not real. They have players in the NFL that can easily run as fast as Usma Bolt and the surface is hard which makes a big difference. FA football is normally played on watered down soft surfaces, and the game is intentionally slowed down by the players so they can get a breather since they do not have the luxury of taking real breaks. - Clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever watch a certain Gareth Bale, he is fast and can run more times at high speed then you obviously know! BTW it's USAIN not "Usma", do you ever get any facts right, ever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.36 (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

rate

i found this page quite interesting *thumbs up*

Education and Club Structure Questions

Do you think that the educational system of the U.S. has hampered the growth of the game in the U.S. In most other countries, football clubs take in youth players at a young age, but in America, players go through university first. Does this have a significant effect on the game from a youth standpoint? In the 'big four' sports, there are teams for every level of development, but for football, there seem to be teams for small children and adults. Also, I've heard that many schools that have football play a different version to the 'standard' game, with shorter games, etc. In most other countries, schools don't have there own sport teams, forcing students to seek clubs for sport participation. Do the structures of clubs and leagues also harm the acceptance? The fact that most teams are tied to their leagues seems to me to limit the number of clubs that can exist. In America, all sports have franchising, and that leads to a lack of local clubs which is the most common model for football around the world. Is MLS a negative influence on American football? To me, MLS feels artificial, especially the over marketing of the game, such as the matches between LA Galaxy and Chivas USA being automatically important. Around the world, many derbies aren't very important to the clubs. A perfect example is Chelsea-Fulham, They both play in Fulham, but because they haven't always played in the same division, they don't have a heated rivalry. Do true football fans in the U.S. actually watch MLS? I always get the feeling that it tries too hard. In my opinion football happens, it isn't created. Do you think we should add something about the overall structuring of sport in America to the article? It seems worth a mention. I apologize if that was rambling. mpbx 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the page in question? This isn't a forum, it's a page for discussing the subject of the article. Batman2005 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soccer as a winter sport in California

I want to make a note regarding this section.

One factor contributing to the relatively slow pace of soccer's growth in popularity is the competitive nature amongst various American youth sports programs, primarily centered around community clubs in the pre-teen years and secondary school teams thereafter. In some regions of the U.S., High School soccer and American football are both played in the fall and a student generally cannot devote time to both. Until the 1980s, most high schools in the U.S. did not offer soccer at all, and youth soccer programs were extremely rare until the 1970s. Thus, older generations of Americans living today grew up with virtually no exposure to the sport.

I went to high school in the San Francisco Bay Area, and most high schools offer soccer programs in the winter, which conflicts with basketball and wrestling. Here are relatively very few high schools that offer ice hockey, and because basketball rosters are limited to 12, there is an opportunity for more students to participate in a soccer team where the roster can be twice as large. Therefore, students in most regions in California can participate in American football in the fall and soccer in the winter (and baseball in the spring).

I currently attend High School in Sacramento, California. Soccer at my school is a fall sport. Our team competes with teams from all over California, Washington, Oregon and Utah. I have never heard of soccer as a winter sport and am quite sure that the majority of schools offer soccer in the fall, which does conflict with football, cross country and water polo. Women's soccer is played in the spring, however. -Wake266 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wake266 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer mom

Does this reference really belong in the article? Is it of such interest to all looking up Soccer in the United states, and is it really a milestone by which the success of soccer mey be esteemed? I think not. Whoever edits this article regularly should change it. ASAP. Madskile 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it.--Jersey Devil 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GIrls Section

The section on the female soccer players strikes me as being sexist.... "The women even have their own professional leagues". This is sexist language. Also there is a misunderstanding of Title IX. Title IX does not guarantee females get sports, it makes equality among boys and girls programs a legal requirement. This applies to much more than just having a women's program (if there is no women's program, technically women are allowed to try out for the mens programs...there are plenty of female football place kickers at the high school level). It just demands that there can be no discrimination of males or females (solely based on Gender). While Pointy football doesn't take many female players, there are plenty of other sports to take players from soccer; lacrosse, basketball, softball, volleyball... this statement seems, again, to be gender biased and not encyclopedia like. There is no proven connection between the lack of pointy football for girls and popularity of girls soccer...if there is, cite the source. There is a great deal wrong with this section of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.68.218 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

90:00 Magazine ?

Does anyone know if 90:00 Magazine is notable in US Soccer? If so is there a good place to mention it in any US soccer Wikipedia articles? Barrylb (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements on Jerseys in MLS

The article states that, "For the first decade of MLS, team jerseys did not bear advertisements, as sportsmen bearing commercial logos is frowned upon in American team sports. However, starting in the 2007 MLS season, teams were allowed to sign up shirt sponsors." That is true for the fronts of jerseys but in the early days of Major League Soccer many teams had sponsors under the numbers on the backs of jerseys.

Thamesx2 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barcelona

I think many inhabitants of Barcelona would be upset to hear their team described as Spanish-speaking in the section concerning the record attendence. Barcelona is in Cataluyna, part of the Catalan-speaking world. For a North American equivilant, I guess it might be like calling Puerto Rico an "English-speaking" country. I will rephrase this, unless anyone objects? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are offended by that then they are looking to be offended - the people in Barcelona do for a fact speak Spanish and they are Spanish people. It is nothing like calling Puerto Rico an English-speaking country because they don't speak English. The speak Spanish. So the same would be calling Puerto Rico a Spanish-speaking country and guess what? It is. Same as Spain, including Barcelona, is a Spanish speaking country (imagine that). Now if you want to be techincal Americans do not speak English, but you do not see them crying about that do you? American is an offical dialect just like Portugues is different from Spanish. Hardly worth crying about. Is Catalan an offical language? Yes it is. Is it different from Spanish - yes it is. So what? The people in Wales speak Welsh but they are still an English Speaking people and would not complain about being called it.

So yes I object to changing the article because it is pointless. The bigger question is why is Barcelona mentioned in an article about US SPORTS? -- Clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Soccer in the United States → Association football in the United States — "Association football" is the full name of the sport, and this is like that even if the page is written in American English. "Soccer" is only a nickname. amateur55 03:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess again. Soccer is just as much an offical name as Football. Just because the English decided to rename the sport from Soccer to Association Football does not mean the rest of the world has to rename it also. Note I am saying rename it, because even in England the word Soccer was the normal way to refer to the sport at one time. It is also worth noting that Association Football only applies if your sport is regulated by a FA, which guess what American Soccer is not. It is regulated by the United States Soccer Federation. Note the word Soccer in the offical organisation. Guess what that makes the sport officially called in that country? Yes, Soccer - so no it is not just a nickname. Enthocentric BS -- Clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR ; WP:COMMONNAME ; WP:JARGON. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: If soccer is a nickname for football, than is restroom a nickname for loo? Is elevator a nickname for lift? We call something else football in the United States. A redirect of Association football in the United States should be sufficient Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR. No, I'm not 65.93.12.101. Where does Football in the United States point to, incidentally? -- Nczempin (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per foregoing. It's called soccer in NA. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree we should go with the common name. --Kumioko (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. common. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear ENGVAR issue. oknazevad (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation; in the United States, the sport of association football generally is called "soccer". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (sorry for piling on). Jenks24 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment if "soccer" is a nickname, then what the hell is North American Soccer League? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Association Football is known as "Soccer" in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA. (Although it has since been changed to Football in Australia and New Zealand but is still referred to as Soccer). Since the rest of the world uses the official "Association Football" name, then that would be the more common name used for searching. The article page could then say something like... "Association Football or "Soccer" as it's known in the United States, has long been a popular sport in the US etc." Another thing, should "Football" be capitalized in the new suggested title? AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The rest of the world doesn't say Association Football, the rest of the world just says Football (in their respective languages. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: If the suggested title was "Football in the United States" title, then yes, it could lead to misunderstanding. But since the suggested title includes the name "association football" there will be no doubt that the sport that mentioned is soccer, and it will also be a more "official" name. amateur55 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: But you have read WP:COMMONNAME? -- Nczempin (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. We need to get non-US articles to change their name from football to soccer. Next big request for move! :) Student7 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment that's a much better change, since Can/US/Aus/NZ/SA all use "soccer", so the English world use is dominated by "soccer", but the UK use is not the same as the English world use. "Soccer" is much less confusing to boot. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States do not constitute a majority within the English-speaking world, and the English-language Wikipedia is not intended just for the Anglosphere. "Football" is the dominant word globally (check the interwiki links at Association football) and even within the English-speaking world (if File:Soccer football.png is correct). "Association football" is used within Wikipedia because: (1) it is the official, international name for the sport, and (2) "football" is ambiguous. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Nice try but yes they do constitute a majority - by about 335 million. Even if it was just the US compared to all those other countries the US alone would constitute a majority over every other English-speaking country combined by 127M people. So you look pretty silly making a comment like that. The majority of the English-speaking world do for a fact use the term Soccer instead of Football. However, there is an enormous population of people that do not speak Engish native that use the word Football instead. It can be either way - but any reference to the US should be Soccer - the OFFICAL name of the sport in the US. This all of course ignores the fact that Wiki has made it clear that US English (American to use the offical name) is the language of Wiki which means what? That soccer is the correct term for this website and words should be spelt the American way if we like it or not -- Clayton

• • • • • I think Stu was being facetious... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The men in foreign leagues section

Tgis section is getting put of control and just a bit ridiculous. This was meant to be a small sample of exceptionally notable (that is, quite famous) players who have spent time in foreign leagues. Instead it's become a running list of all players that are currently in foreign leagues, and is constantly updated to reflect any transfers of those players. This needs to stop, as it's totally not the point and lists too many players that just happen to carry US passports, but are nearly unheard of in the US itself. Plus there's issues with WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE with the current form.

I suggest that the list be limited to past and present players who have played for the US Men's National Team, and not be broken down by foreign league, but alphabetically by players' last names. It would accomplish the goal of showing that US men have played in notable foreign leagues, while being far more stable. More importantly, it would return the proper focus to the section; once again, the point is not to be a running current roster! oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section is out of control. There are so many US players abroad, and many of them playing in the lower leagues are not notable. I don't think a shorter list is the answer, because then people fight about which players make the list and which players do not. My suggestion would be to create a new Wiki page, move the whole list into that separate Wiki article/list, and have only a link on the "Soccer in the United States" page to that list. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds wrong...

National teams in the world ??? It's very close to being a pleonasm , if not being one.

" Both the 1999 and 2003 FIFA Women's World Cups were held in the United States, and the United States has emerged as one of the best national teams in the world. "

Not going to mess with the article. Author please fix.

83.101.83.96 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Soccer should be Football

In wikipedia, when you search football, the first choice comes up to be as sociation football, which is named football. However, in this article, the title states "Soccer in the United States". This totally doesn't match up and loses consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.219.165 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need to be told that the word football means American Football in the United States. And in the United States, the common name of the game you want to call football is soccer. That's how it works in Wikipedia. Using the common name is policy, and make more sense. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Two Tags

There are two tags on this article that have been there since 2011.

The first tag at the top of the page suggests a violation of WP:RECENTISM, claiming that there is not enough coverage of soccer in the U.S. before the mid 1980's. My view is that this criticism of the article is no longer valid. This article contains an extensive section on the history of soccer in the U.S., with a link to a longer article re soccer in the U.S. Unless people object, and identify recentism problems still remaining with the article, I am going to remove the banner.

The second tag, located in the section titled Soccer on TV (formerly titled Popularity of soccer in the United States), claims the section or article is not NEUTRAL, and that the tag should not be removed until the discussion on the Talk page is resolved. The problem here is that there is no discussion/dispute on the Talk page, and nothing to explain why this section or article is apparently not neutral. Can someone please identify what the problems are, so that contributors can fix the problems? If people cannot identify any neutrality problems, I will remove the tag.

Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody identified any reasons for keeping the tags, so I have removed them. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Early American Soccer Games

Gentlemen, If I May......

 I have spent over a half-century compiling games of early soccer, rugby and football in the USA. I self-published a couple books and was quickly made aware in 2009 they could not be used for verification purposes.
 Last December in Wikipedia under '1860s & 1870s in American Soccer', my 2008 book titled, 'Evolvements of Early American Foot Ball: Thru the 1890/91 Season' was used for verification purposes. A few selected soccer games from my book were listed for the years 1866, 1868 and 1870.
 Since my book was published in 2008, there have been millions of pages of old newspapers put online. So my book is outdated with much more information having been added.
 The problem is my information does not fit in very well with accepted written histories of foot-ball in America. For example in 1870, you will not find any football games listed under association football or soccer at Rutgers, Princeton or Columbia Universities. All these games are listed under the American football game, and has been for over 100 years now.
 If, after a discussion period, you guys decide not to go against history and not list my games, I will certainly back away. If you decide these games are really association football or soccer, I will begin to submit more information.

Sincerely, Mel Smith, 04/09/2013 OL35srf (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans playing in foreign leagues

I cut most of the names from this list and moved them to a new wiki page, and since I made a large cut, I thought I'd explain it here. I chopped the list for several reasons (most of which have been stated above already). First, the list of names had become rather lengthy, and so deserved its own page. Second, the comprehensive list led to this page being constantly updated, particularly during transfer windows. Third, the shorter list is more in keeping with the original intent of the list to highlight the most successful Americans abroad. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality: Lack of information on criticism of Major League Soccer

Unfortunately, this article glosses over major criticisms surrounding Major League Soccer, including the fact that the U.S. does not have a proper soccer pyramid with relegation and promotion into its top league, MLS being a single entity, closed shop rather than a system of clubs, and how the U.S. Soccer Federation is colluding with Major League Soccer to protect it from undue competition.

The state of the game following the United States' failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup is also missing. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the MLS section of the article saying MLS does not have promotion & relegation. Unless there's something more, the neutrality tag can probably be removed. CUA 27 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how not having a pyramid and being a closed shop could be considered valid reasons for complaint. The situation of American soccer is basically the same as the situation of other major sports in this country. The US simply organizes sports in its own way.--Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Lack of a synthetic overview

American soccer history is very confusing for people outside the U.S., basically, because of the lack of a relatively single and continuous national federation organizing regular First Division championships. There's no article in Wikipedia explaining this changes and this would be the perfect place for it. The article on the US soccer pyramid isn't historical (and it shouldn't be), but there's a huge need of an explanation for what transpired with 'First Division' teams all along the American soccer history (for instance, in between the NASL fall and the MLS emergence). Hope someone better suited than me takes up the task here. Ipsumesse (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's because we don't do sports that way in the US. The very concept of a "soccer pyramid" or a "First Division" does not really exist in the US.--Khajidha (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Structure of ‘Sports in the United States’ Article: Gender Order of Sections

Good day everyone, I would like to begin this claim by stating that I noticed that the ‘Sports in the United States’ article has sections on female sports before male sports. Considering the popularity and historical significance of male sports in the United States, some may find this order unconventional. Would it be more appropriate to follow a structure that reflects the broader cultural emphasis on male sports, or is the current order justified by other considerations? Open to discussing the best way to present this information neutrally and comprehensively. Thank you. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

USL Super League is Division 1

This article lists incorrect information. USL Super League is barely mentioned and when it is listed, the information is incorrect. USL Super League is in the same tier as NWSL 67.241.210.179 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)