That's part of it, but I'm of the opinion that the main reason is that Americans can afford to play other sports. Soccer's success owes a lot to the fact that it -- at its most basic -- is extremely cheap to play relative to other sports in terms of equipment needed. The worst thing that could happen to soccer would be if world poverty was wiped out.

 

How much more expensive is baseball? At the bare bones level, you can play football without pads. Despite how boring you say it is, it's absolutely wildly exciting to the vast majority of the globe. Yes, even in those wealthier countries where American sports, like basketball for example, can be played, or at least watched, they find soccer far more thrilling.

 

If there is a dominant reason why soccer hasn't and won't catch on in the US it's cultural. We've grown attached to football, a distinctly American sport, since its beginning. We grow up watching it. We grow up playing it. Largely at the expense of soccer. By the time we are adults we've developed a long list of silly jabs at soccer, like how it's a sport for sissies, and we largely have no exposure to it, and thus have no allegiance to teams, players, or the knowledge to follow it.

How much more expensive is baseball? At the bare bones level, you can play football without pads. Despite how boring you say it is, it's absolutely wildly exciting to the vast majority of the globe. Yes, even in those wealthier countries where American sports, like basketball for example, can be played, or at least watched, they find soccer far more thrilling.

 

If there is a dominant reason why soccer hasn't and won't catch on in the US it's cultural. We've grown attached to football, a distinctly American sport, since its beginning. We grow up watching it. We grow up playing it. Largely at the expense of soccer. By the time we are adults we've developed a long list of silly jabs at soccer, like how it's a sport for sissies, and we largely have no exposure to it, and thus have no allegiance to teams, players, or the knowledge to follow it.

 

Or how it is a sport for lesser nations and broken people.

It is the saturation of the sports marketplace here compared to other nations. Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Golf, and Soccer all competing for the same fans here.

How much more expensive is baseball? At the bare bones level, you can play football without pads. Despite how boring you say it is, it's absolutely wildly exciting to the vast majority of the globe. Yes, even in those wealthier countries where American sports, like basketball for example, can be played, or at least watched, they find soccer far more thrilling.

 

If there is a dominant reason why soccer hasn't and won't catch on in the US it's cultural. We've grown attached to football, a distinctly American sport, since its beginning. We grow up watching it. We grow up playing it. Largely at the expense of soccer. By the time we are adults we've developed a long list of silly jabs at soccer, like how it's a sport for sissies, and we largely have no exposure to it, and thus have no allegiance to teams, players, or the knowledge to follow it.

 

Well, in baseball you need gloves, bats, balls, helmets, catchers' gear, etc. In soccer, you really only need a ball. Sure, a lot of soccer's popularity is cultural. But it also has to do with lack of options.

I am in no way saying that soccer costs as much as baseball, hockey, or football...but dont' forget about cleats. They are just as expensive as basketball shoes.

I am in no way saying that soccer costs as much as baseball, hockey, or football...but dont' forget about cleats. They are just as expensive as basketball shoes.

 

However, you can play soccer and basketball barefooted if you had no choice. All you need is a ball.

 

My point about soccer is that even in the most poverty-stricken hell-hole a group of people can still take some rolled-up laundry and make a ball to kick around. You can't really do that with baseball. OK, you can, but it's not really baseball. Heck, basketball's even on a higher economic plane than soccer, as you have to have a real ball that bounces.

What's the difference between poor kids using a stick and a rock to play baseball and a group of poor kids rolling up laundry for a soccer ball?

 

You saying that doesn't really count as baseball, then I will say rolled up laundry ball doesn't really count as soccer.

However, you can play soccer and basketball barefooted if you had no choice. All you need is a ball.

 

My point about soccer is that even in the most poverty-stricken hell-hole a group of people can still take some rolled-up laundry and make a ball to kick around. You can't really do that with baseball. OK, you can, but it's not really baseball. Heck, basketball's even on a higher economic plane than soccer, as you have to have a real ball that bounces.

 

It's really soccer without the goals or a real ball, but it's not really baseball unless the catcher has full gear and every kid has a leather glove? You can play baseball (and football) just as primitively.

So it's soccer without the goals or a real ball, but it's not baseball unless the catcher has full gear and every kid has a leather glove? You can play baseball just as primitively.

 

Any many across the world do.

It's really soccer without the goals or a real ball, but it's not really baseball unless the catcher has full gear and every kid has a leather glove? You can play baseball (and football) just as primitively.

 

Any many across the world do.

 

Sure, you can, but you don't see it much, if at all. Maybe in the DR or Puerto Rico -- you know, places where there's poverty. When's the last time any of you guys saw kids in the US playing sandlot baseball as a pick-up game, let alone stickball? I stand by my earlier statement: Soccer owes a great deal of its popularity to worldwide poverty.

Sure, you can, but you don't see it much, if at all. Maybe in the DR or Puerto Rico -- you know, places where there's poverty. When's the last time any of you guys saw kids in the US playing sandlot baseball as a pick-up game, let alone stickball? I stand by my earlier statement: Soccer owes a great deal of its popularity to worldwide poverty.

 

What does it matter what games US kids play in primitive form? (For the record, very many play football with nothing but the ball) You were saying that soccer is popular everywhere but the US because it can be played cheaply, i.e. the poor have no other sport to turn to. I think most other sports can be played just as cheaply at that bare bones level. Not to mention many well off countries, particularly Western Europe, are the exact places were soccer is most popular.

I agree that we do have a TON of sports clamoring for our sports viewership. I also agree with Jim that many of the foreign countries much less developed than we are have been exposed to soccer and many of these kids only need a ball and nothing else to play. The basic rules are also MUCH simpler than our other sports. You try to kick the ball in a goal or between 2 objects and can't touch it with your hands unless you are a goalie.