First, I will agree that there are a lot of UK sports fans that have a go at American sports. I have found myself defending our sports in the past and it has been really annoying. However, I found the same on the American side as well. I grew up in Raleigh, not far from you, playing soccer. All I heard from other people was how crap of a sport soccer is. In my experience as any expat the same thing is true with some Americans that come over to the UK to live. I will agree that America competes in soccer and rugby, but the UK doesn't compete as well in basketball etc. The only thing I will point out is that the UK has a professional basketball and hockey league and a very competitive amateur football league. Does America has a porfessional rugby and cricket league? Also, It has taken us years even to develop a pro soccer league. So, in my mind, although I agree with you partly, the proof is in the pudding
People like what's native to them and will dismiss most other sports every instance. Like I said, it's not an American-only thing. Professional basketball league? Do they make a living wage in the league (their only source of income in other words)? If they do not, it's not professional. It's at best semi-pro. There is the Rugby Super League, which is not professional in the true sense of the word. The reason the rugby league is not professional is because 1.) it'd go bankrupt the second it did, 2.) there are certain tax advantages that comes with remaining amateur, and 3.) it takes a lot of money to develop a true national league with the distance from one coast to the other. Rugby has nowhere near the fan support of soccer in this country and MLS for most team owners in the league is essentially a tax writeoff still to this day. Besides, how can you have a professional rugby league with a team travelling from St. Louis to Los Angeles and the only attendance at the game is mostly friends and family with no TV contract? Do they even pay to attend? Psychadelic_Celtic can help here. Cricket is a dead sport because the only people that care are Caribbeans and South Asians and the U.S. cricket organization is heavily corrupt. The league in Raleigh for example is flourishing with a dozen or so teams and yet throughout those 12 teams there's a grand total of one white person and zero blacks. Cricinfo picks up on that here: http://blogs.cricinfo.com/cricinfoselect/archives/2007/01/a_long_way_from_home.php
Flyin, how long have you lived outside the country or have you just formed your opinions from international posters on Bigsoccer. I did say that I agreed with you in part, but if you look at the facts. The UK has a professional basket ball and hockey league plus a very competitve semi professional football league. The only reason we can compete at almost all sports is because we have 300+ million people and are the richest country on earth. It has taken us decades to establish a half ass pro soccer league and we have no pro rugby or criket. British Basketball League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Basketball_League I am sorry but these aren't excuses. Your argument was that Americans are just as open to international sports as internationals are to American sports. Then why does the UK have professional American sports leagues and the US does not. It is one of most popular sports in the world. The fact that only caribbeans and South Asians play it in America is not a reason for the mainstream to not embrace it. If we(americans) were so open to international sports we would at least have a top notch semi professional comp.
Because the UK is a tiny country with smaller overhead costs while the U.S. is several times larger and the amount of money needed to support a pro league does not exist because there is not enough fan interest. And I don't see much point in running an irresponsible business model when the support is not there (like late 1990s MLS did for instance). If the level of support for British basketball is the same level of support here for U.S. rugby, the U.S. could not support a league. You're looking at this purely in terms of "national arrogance" while ignoring geography and costs. Second, there are 8000ish people that will turn up to watch Munster play the Eagles in Chicago, mainly to watch Munster. Go ask those people why they won't go watch the Chicago club team. Per this site http://s14.zetaboards.com/WhatsBev/topic/6510703/3/ , the salary cap for 2009 per British bball team is 180k pounds, which works out to an average of 15k pounds per player, some of which are obviously making less. So that's not a pro league, it's a semi-pro league as players would be required to take on other jobs to supplement their income. And look at the professional national leagues throughout the world: England, France, South Africa, New Zealand That's it. Four countries for the whole world. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Italy have decided they cannot run a pro league on their own so decided to merge together for the Magners League. Argentina and Australia don't even have national pro leagues and they're two of the best sides in the world. If Argentina doesn't think it can be successful with a pro league, what makes you think the U.S. can or should? HOW? You strike me as a person that doesn't understand that travel, players, equipment, logistics, hotels cost money. Not to mention it costs a lot of money to fly from New York to L.A. And what is the point of having a pro league if there are not enough fans attending to be able to cover the costs? It seems to me as though you're completely ignoring money and want to create the rugby version of the North American Soccer League. Yeah, the Cosmos were one of the finest assemblies of great soccer players ever. The crowds they got could not financially support it. Contradiction. If it's semi-pro it's not top notch.
just being picky, but Italy is not in the Magner's League. They have their own league (Super 10) and put teams into the european competitions
that article is dated Dec 2008, which is after the current Magner's League season started. currently there is a Super 10 season going on. And I wouldn't be surprised if the teams that join the Magners League are representative XV sides and the Super 10 is still in existence. Ireland and Wales have domestic leagues still, but I don't know if those teams are professional.
Since this is the Sevens thread, U.S. lost to South Africa narrowly and defeated Australia with still Canada to play in the pool stage. And for yankee_rob and anyone else interested, here is some in-depth discussion as far as USA Rugby and financing from mid-December. http://media.libsyn.com/media/narr/Rugbytalk_68.mp3
US also beat Canada 26-0 and will head to the quarterfinals vs Kenya. The Setana commentators were saying that this was the 2nd time the US had beaten Australia in sevens rugby, or something to that effect. Before that, it was 12 wins for Australia and 1 for the US.
Flyin, Thanks for that! I will have a look. On another note did you see that USA Sevens made the quarters for the 3rd straight time. Every year our sevens program gets better and better. Make sure to watch the ABC tape delay version at 5pm EST on the 22nd of Feburary. P.S. Coach Caravelli is a god!