Where there is money, there is corruption. Trust me, it would happen. Specially if it's beneficial to both teams.
I wasn't around for either '94 or '99, so I can't comment on that. However, I was around for 2006, and I guarantee you that the majority of people thought the World Cup was a glass to drink out of. Is that part of the spectacular marketing of soccer we've been seeing lately? Rugby is very similar to football - thus it would never take off, because in concept it already exists. Soccer is completely different. You're wrong. Does ABC broadcast regular soccer games as it does for perhaps football of maybe baseball? What about ESPN? ESPN2? No, none of them do. In fact, I personally have never seen a soccer game on any of those channels. I had upgrade my satellite package before I could. Do we see the media broadcast stories on soccer players like they do for those of other sports? NO. Do you see billionaires sponsoring MLS clubs like they do for football and baseball clubs? Of course not. Are there any characters like Silvio Berlusconi or the Agnelli family (who sponsor AC Milan and Juventus, respectively) owning clubs from the MLS? None whatsoever - and there is no shortage of rich people in the United States. Soccer is hardly a known sport in the USA - if it were, it'd be definitely a more popular sport. Media and advertising is all that is needed to influence the nation to like soccer better. That's the only reason why baseball and football became so popular today. I don't buy the nonsense that "America is simply not a nation that can like soccer." And if it was, I definitely wouldn't support enlarging goalposts or Americanizing the game so a few more ignorant people would enjoy watching it. Advertising is everything.
I disagree with the basic premise. Brasil v Argentina in the Copa America final had me on the edge of the seat. First half was classic. Argentina always looked dangerous. Perhaps the game became less interesting when Brasil got their second -- but the curse is much worse than the problem. Chelsea plays every game in sold-out stadiums. Enough said. Leave soccer alone. Work on fixing simulation which is already against the rules and the sport is exciting, healthy and fun. Soccer is unique in the sports world in that a decisive moment can come at anytime. Goals matter. Leave it that way.
Another problem with more goals would be the fact, that the dispatrity between the teams would become even bigger. The top teams with the best individual players would profit the most, from every rule change which increases the scoring. Fewer goals, more upsets.
You just can't force something down their throats. ESPN used to show MLS games (maybe still show it), they do show the UEFA CL (although it's in the afternoon), and they have been showing all WC games since 94. You can't really expect the average American fan to start watching EPL or La Liga for example. What the average American fan needs is a good story to get introduced into the sport. That would mean a World Class player emerging in MLS preferably American.
Because it's not as popular. Anchutz? Hunt? Kraft? Red Bull owners? They advertised New Coke, it doesn't mean people liked it. If the most powerful brand in the world can't force people to like something, how can a little-known soccer league do so? If advertising were all that it took to make something popular, why don't the sports media advertise chess all the time? It's much cheaper to broadcast than an outdoor sport where you need dozens of cameras and commentators. They became popular before commercial TV even existed.
...because it's gonna die soon. We need to get rid of an obvious stupidity, like these: - to revise an off-side rule. The off-side rule was invented to punish the bad playing in defense (like kicking the ball over the whole pitch to a lonely forward). To apply the off-side rule in attack IS STUPID! After the teams has brought the ball close to the opponents' area, THERE IS NO SENSE IN APPLYING THE OFF-SIDE RULE AT ALL!; - to forbid kicking players legs. Otherwise we all will end up watching the urban football tricks (or whatever they call it) on Eurosport instead of football itself; - to find out how to fight against the coaches. They are making their money on ruining the game. If the game is won by a talented player, that means the coach did not earn his money. The coaches are making their huge money out of the wins of mediocre and obeying teams. They don't need the stars. They expell the stars from football; - to revise the Bosman case. This case killed the schools in countries like Romania and ex-Yugoslavia. No win of a modest club (like Steaua ro Dinamo Tbilisi) is possible anymore in Europe. The Bosman case was invented by rich superclubs
Wow. The Bosman case will not and should not be revised. Bosman sued for the simple right to work (= play) where he wanted-- the same right the rest of us enjoy without thinking about it. He was playing I think in the Belgian second division, or something far from the glamor of the big clubs. Some conspiracy! The Bosman case is a basic question of worker rights, and there will be no fixing it. Rinoceronte, you suggest eliminating offsides when the attack nears the goal. How close? 18 yards? 30? 7? Besides, if you ban offsides, all you'll end up with are long balls. Attackers will plant themselves near the goal and wait for the attack. But the defenders will hang back to mark them. The game will spread out over 80-90 yards, and all passes will have to be long balls. The game will be destroyed. There is no need to fix soccer. It catches on slowly but surely. What we don't want is meteoric growth like the NASL had or like the NHL had. If millions suddenly jump on the futbol bandwagon, then soccer will have become a fad, and fads fade real quick. Could soccer be better? Yes. If the players behaved better, and most of the problems people have listed here would disappear. If only that weren't easier said than done.
The offside rule wasn't invented, it was always part of the game due to its rugby-like origins. It's not like they saw a load of long balls and decided to implement it. [quote[To apply the off-side rule in attack IS STUPID! After the teams has brought the ball close to the opponents' area, THERE IS NO SENSE IN APPLYING THE OFF-SIDE RULE AT ALL!; Wtf are you talking about? No it wasn't, it was 'invented' by EU labour laws. And how come a modest team like Porto won in Europe? Bringing back the Bosman rule wouldn't mean less players going to the richest leagues. Money always wins.
the offside rule is in place to prevent goal-hanging. "kicking at legs" has been forbidden since 1863 when the first rules were drafted. I guess that's why coaches around the world go out of their way to not sign talented players. It's such a shame that those damn coaches make sure that the likes of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Kaka etc never get to play for top teams. The Bosman rule only applies to EU countries. It is actually a bad ruling, but blame the Belgians for that, and their Byzantine transfer rules which weren't used anywhere else.
2nominalise and RichardL: An off-side rule. Yes, you are right, the off-side rule is against goal-hanging and long-balls. That's the reason why it was introduced. But that's when the teams is defending. When the team is in attack, the applying of the rule is senseless. Nominalise, you ask a good question: how close to the opponents' goal the attacking team should bring the ball to be allowed to play without off-side rule. I suggest two variants: (1) a player with the ball enters the opponents' part of the field (or brings it, say, another ten meters further) and the off-side rulle does not apply from this moment, or (2) the same as in hockey - no one is allowed to cross a certain line before the guy with the ball has crossed it. After the line is crossed, there's no off-side rule applied. Can you imagine what hockey would be with soccer-like offside rule valid in it? Pure idiotism, don't you think? Why don't we say aloud then that apllying an off-side rule in soccer is the same idiotism? Twenty years ago the defensemen at least played while standing on their feet. There were way lesser amount of various tackles. The term "tackle" meant robbing the ball without touching opponents' legs or interfering his course of movement. Today "tackle" stands for mere kicking the opponents legs, checking the opponent, crashing into an opponent. Good sarcasm, but I can name you TONS of Ronaldinho's and Kaka's coevals from various countries who weren't given a chance by coaches. You even don't know their names, while they are as good as those two guys. Again, twenty years ago every team had 5-6 Ronaldinhos simultaneously on the field. Also I can recall you a story that happened between Camoranesi and Malesani in Verona. Look, who's playing now in Velez Sarsfield under La Volpe, and who sits on the bench. Look, what's been going on in Independiente in last years. Where is Rivas? What did Passarella do a year ago to Ortega? Why? Why in Argentina the enganches are in lesser demand every year? The coaches vs. talents is a long story. We could talk for hours. I agree with you that soccer is still attended by millions all over the world. But the problem is that the quality of a soccer attender has worsened. It's not anymore a fan that used to be 20 years ago. It's not someone who knows the game, who understands the game well, who plays himself well. It's someone else. I'm a footballer myself. I have lots of friends who play very well. We all sleep during Champions League, we have slept all the European Cup. It's about whether to give the game up to its "new" followers, who promote an absolutely different game, or try to defend the game as it has been during all 100 years of its history.
rubbish. Teams didn't even offer any more than a token defence for years after the game was invented. The ruling had nothing to do with how team played out of defence. To be honest nobody really knows what would happen if the offside rule was scrapped - it could actualy take a few years for tactics to adapt. It would be a huge change though, one that would completely alter the pattern of the game. It would almost certainly encourage long balls as the game would be a lot more stretched. Defenders would not be able to push up and support the midfield, and at least one striker, you'd expect, would always stay forward. a hockey rink is much small and tighter than a football pitch, with much less available space, and a lot more ways of stopping a player. Imagine 4 a side hockey and how farcical it'd be due to the room each player had. Well those players would have less room than footballers would without the offside rule. no, as has been said, those are fouls. The rules for what is a foul are a lot stricter than they used to be 20 years ago. There are loads of fouls now that wouldn't have been fouls 20 years ago. In fact people are now sent off for things that wouldn't have been fouls 20 years ago. No, I'm sure you can name loads of talented players who had no grasp of playing a team, and were therefore of little use to a coach trying to win matches. Having a good repertoire of tricks doesn't make you a good player as you also have to be able to play as part of a team. so where has the game got worse? People think the top teams internationally have got worse, but the truth is that the opposition has just got better. The days of Brazil putting on a show against New Zealand are over because the lesser world cup teams now are far better than the likes of New Zealand back then. It's true that negative football is potentially ruining the latter stages of the world cup, but you can blame that squarely on the penalty shoot-out for offering an option of winning without having to take any risks. And unless you can find an evidence to the contrary, I think it's faily safe to say that there aren't any more goals being disallowed for offside than 20 years ago. In fact a fair number of goals that stand now would have be ruled offside back then.
Good point. Today what they call "tackle" is a pure foul. Allowed one. The first team that comes across my mind is France of 1982-84, with purely creative midfield of Platini, Tigana, Giresse and Fernandez. Another example are Italians of 1982 - Rossi, Conti, Tardelli, Cabrini, Graziani. Brasil of the same year: Falcao, Zico, Socrates, Eder, Junior, Toninho Cerezo. USSR in 1986 - Belanov, Zavarov, Yaremchuk, Yakovenko, Rats, Bessonov (with Cherenkov sitting on a bench!). Great Georgian teams of 80s - Kipiani, Daraselia, Gutsaev, Ketashvili, Svanadze and more. Not mentioning Brasil of 1970 with not a single player of a narrow specialization. Even Germany in 80s had simultaneously Littbarski, Rummenigge, Magat, Forster, Stielike, Allofs on the field, i.e. all of them creative players. Recall Juventus of 1985. Or even England of 1990! - Gascoign, Robson, Lineker, Waddle, Hoddle, Beardsley and Barnes. And please, don't compare them to Gerrard and Lampard. Only Rooney and to a certain degree Owen (alhough, he is no Lineker) resemble just a bit the style of those times. And what about Real of mid-80s (with only two foreigners allowed!) - Sanchez, Valdano, Gordillo, Maceda, Juanito, Butrageno, Gallego. Sorry man, but to my taste neither Ronaldinho nor Kaka stand comparison to those players, although they are great too.
(it gets lengthier that I thought) 2RichardL: Off-sides. You haven't heard me. The long balls will be encouraged if we just cancel the off-side rule. While I'm talking about changing it. About not applying it when the team is attacking. Actually, the off-side rule is not a problem. Poeple did play under this rule for decades. What is problem is an off-side trap that was invented (or promoted) by Eric Gerets only in 1980. Since then by getting more and more sophisticated, this trap has been killing the game. We should fight against the off-side trap, if we want fancy football back. The rules are not stricter, they are milder. That's my feeling. The accents are put more stupidly. They expel now a defensemen who plays hand in the area to avoid a goal. Penalty had always been enough in this case before. Expelling is not adequate. At the same time everyone is pulling everyone's jersey now. While twenty years ago no one even could imagine in the worst nightmare the possibility to pull the jersey. It was the same as pulling one's hair. Today it's wide-spread and mainly allowed. It's not New Zealand that raised to Brazil's level. It's Brazil that has been sinking down to mediocrity. Brazil at Copa America this years was the worst Brazil I ever saw. It was worse than New Zealand when they at least had Rufer. Or Australia, when they had Krncevic. At least, they were way more fun to watch.
That in no way is clear that "every team had 5-6 Ronaldinhos simultaneously on the field". Besides, half of those players are not really comparable players to the likes of Ronaldinho or Kaka. Robson? He was a box to box midfielder who would be compared most with Gerrard.
Ok, change it to "many teams". As I said, I, personally, would prefer most of the mentioned players over both Ronaldinho and, especially, Kaka. Not really for skills, but for overall mentality (although, the overall skills level was way much higher in those times). To me Robson is better than Gerard. He was milder, more versatile, less preditable. More of 80s. More footballistic. Less existentional.
Soccer rules have changed before and will change again. Tired of time wasting and diving but all for high scoring games.
Actually today tackling is softer than ever. You should have seen the days of Norman Hunter and Chopper Harris. Or even Vinnie Jones. OK, I've finally clicked that it's a wind up. It's hard to tell on the Internet because there are so many genuine loons. Well done, you had me going for a while.
Other than substitutes being introduced and automatic red cards for professional fouls or dangerous tackles, there have been no major rule changes since the offside law was revised in 1925 and only two since the foundation of FIFA over a century age. The rules of the game today are pretty much the same as in the 1930s.
There should be two separate set of rules for MLS and the rest of the world. Frankly, American market is saturated with many different sports. Americans have more choices than ever. Even major American sports have had to make changes to attract and retain customers. Sports, first and foremost, is a type of entertainment and, in USA, we have a lots of choices for entertainment. The consensus among main stream Americans is soccer is too much of a low scoring sport.
I'll admit that I haven't read every single post in this thread, so please forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's sentiment. It seems to me that the LOTG are fine the way they are. The game is beautiful the way it is, and I can't imagine telling the entire footballing world that the game needs to change to accommodate the Attention Deficit Disorders of American sports fans. Those who can't appreciate a scoreless draw don't understand the game well enough to properly appreciate it anyway. Having said all of that, I should add that I AM American. If you want to get teams to play to win, then the leagues should place more emphasis on winning. Making a win worth four points instead of three might be a place to start, although that wouldn't eliminate a team scoring first and then bunkering for the rest of the match. It would, however, make a tie much less acceptable. I would even be OK with a win being worth five points. Scott
2leg Breaker: I lived in times of Vinnie Jones, but can't say I watched him a lot, since Wimbledon was a very boring team even in those much prettier times. From your nickname I see what kind of football you prefer. You like breaking people's legs. I like fancy footwork. How can I be something else but a genuine loon? Be well.
Soccer is hard to understand? Give me a break. I was born in another country where we grew up playing soccer. But when I started living in the USA permanently, I found more choices other than soccer. I rather have my choices than not. I can choose to watch American football, basketball or baseball or whatever I like. I am not stuck to one sport unlike most of countries in the world where FIFA is the dictator.