<p>the only commercials come on during halftime...if you have commercials during play than I feel sorry for you...crazy sums of money are paid to the top football players...more than anyone in the mlb will make, therefore corporate sponsors pay insane sums of money to have their logo on the jersey. If you watch enough football the logo becomes the team logo, you dont even notice it.</p>
<p>The whole point of football is not to score..well it is...but if you really appreciate the sport, you appreciate it when Beckham runs down the wing for a cross, or when Zizou roulettes a defender, or when Ronaldinho megs four players to get inside the box. The scoring is so exciting when they dont score alot...a 1-0 victory can be just as exciting as a 3-0 victory, teams are more matched and you see players putting on more moves when the score is lower</p>
<p>haha, they can be fun at times...for example, and I highly recommend all you who dont like football watch this game: The 2005 Champions League Final, AC Milan v Liverpool. </p>
<p>That had to be the best match I have ever seen...at least in recent memory</p>
<p>Ha, I remember seeing the AC Milan v Liverpool game. It really was one of the best games. Liverpool had the biggest comeback. Soccer is my favorite sport. I have known and played it as long as I can remember.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the logo becomes the team logo, you dont even notice it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't you think there's something wrong with that? If the BoSox sold their team image to Sam Adams beer, then there'd be an uproar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole point of football is not to score..well it is...but if you really appreciate the sport, you appreciate it when Beckham runs down the wing for a cross, or when Zizou roulettes a defender, or when Ronaldinho megs four players to get inside the box.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely true. Some of the most exciting games can go 120 minutes without a goal, while some bores have up to 6 goals. It's all about the stakes, the action, and the passion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why is it important to FIFA or the WC that Americans even watch? This is one situation that we really don't matter to the mix. The rest of the world more than makes up for our market. You see 3rd world countries on TV where monthly income is a few dollars, and there's a guy with a Beckham Jersey?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reason is simple and sweet: AMERICAN GREENBACK! Seriously, when we get interested in crap, we capitalize on it; we start making useless little trinkets, jersies, caps, plastic novelty cups, flags... YOU NAME IT! Other sports franchises make billions off of the American people for the same reason.</p>
<p>runnings, In this situation the American Greenback isn't necessary to the mix. I know it sounds unbelievable but my point was they already have marketing established in places where there isn't alot of extra income lying around. </p>
<p>Would it be nice to bring more American dollars in? yes. However think of it as oil production, if you produce too much the price goes down and costs rise, which means less profits. They'll bring America into the mix as cheaply as possible as they have an effective business model that works now for them.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The offside rule definitely opens the game up as it allows for forward movement of defenders. Think about it without offsides the forward would cherry pick and the defenders woul just have to sit back and guard them the entire match then the match becomes a contest of booming the ball back and forth (virtually eliminating the midfield) and getting a goal past the defenders and keeper...plus it would eliminate fast breaks and the whole strategy of the game. </p></li>
<li><p>association football isn't popular in the US because there has never been a good professional league allowing the sport to become embedded in American culture...American's see football as a foreign sport. The lack of a credible, established, top-notch league (the NASL,USL,MLS, etc. have all been jokes) has led football to not be a tradition in the US. If an old, established league (like the MLB) had been in place with the same teams competing every year since 1900 then i can guarantee you that football would have a much better following - people would have their team to root for, there would be rivalries, etc. making the sport more interesting for Americans. Plus lets face it most Americans don't really understand the inherent strategies in football, as the rest of the world doesn't really understand the strategies of American football.</p></li>
<li><p>the FIFA ranking are BS as they are based on amount of matches played (even if you lose your ranking goes up if you constantly play friendly matches for example). So they are insignificant...that is why teams like the US and Mexico, teams that costantly play friendlies and CONCACAF tournaments, have a higher ranking...plus the weight for the CONCACAF is almost as great as the UEFA weight which is ridiculous.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>oh and having the sponsor's name on the jersey, in my opinion, is better as it has allowed the sport to maintain it's "purity"...most American sports have been "cheapened" by allowing corporations to alter their rules to accommodate for commercial breaks which in my opinion cheapens the sport far more than having a corporate logo placed on your shirt. </p>
<p>How much more exciting would basketball be without all the F***ing timeouts. It would require a lot more in-play, on the run strategy rather than pre-fabricated strategies made by the coach. Plus without timeouts, spliting the game into quarters, etc. fatigue plays a greater role requiring more from the athletes, which in my opinion makes the sport better.</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>The offside rule definitely opens the game up as it allows for forward movement of defenders. Think about it without offsides the forward would cherry pick and the defenders woul just have to sit back and guard them the entire match....<<</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The offsides rule is used to shutdown offenses rather than to open up the game. But don't take my bored word for it. Here's what the soccer sports writers say in handicapping the "key match-ups" in the World cup final:</p>
<p>"Thierry Henry vs. Italy's offside trap</p>
<p>The Azzurri's backline players, the best in the tournament, are masters at killing attacks by pushing up to place forwards offside."</p>
<p>"Killing attacks" kinda sums up what soccer in general, and the offsides rule in particular, are all about. No scoring. The fact that there is such a thing as the "offside trap" defense in the first place tells us that there is a problem.</p>
<p>The "cherry picking" problem you cite can easily be solved by having all players (except the goalies) play on offense and all of them play on defense too. That way if any team chooses to cherry pick by leaving a man back by the goal, they will be a man short at the other end, where they will need every man they can get to defend their own goal and to try to get the ball back - like basketball. But at the same time without the dumb offside rule, soccer would be opened up to the steal or rebound followed by a quick downfield pass and fast break. In other words Exciting Action instead of an offense-killing offsides whistle.</p>
<p>that would be so boring though...it would be boom ball back and forth without any strategy and with 7 year old style goals. The offside rules "opens" the game up in that it allows for much more strategy both offensively and defensively (it's all about timing and creating opportunities for your offense while being aware of the various defensive strategies)...i would much rather watch an exciting 0-0 match some of the 0-0s we've seen thus far in the WC than a 7-3 match...plus less goals just makes every goal actually scored more exciting and important which helps to change to tempo of the game constantly.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it would be boom ball back and forth without any strategy and with 7 year old style goals. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>How so? Having everybody play both offense and defense and no offsides rule is exactly what we have in basketball, and the game has not deteriorated into a bunch of back and forth full-court passes. </p>
<p>Basketball has every bit as much in the way of offensive and defensive strategies as does soccer, plus it has the added bonuses of fast breaks, many scoring opportunities, and excitement - three things that are in very short supply in soccer.</p>
<p>I don't like the World Cup because there's a chance America might lose....
that's why I love the World Series, because you just know America is gonna win that one!</p>
<p>I support the USA, but only when it's a sure thing.</p>