Originally posted by sh76
Not a chance.
They said that in 1994 when the US hosted the cup. They started the MLS, which has muddled along for 15 years but is nowhere near even NHL level.
They said that in 1996 when the US women won the cup. They even started a women's soccer league. That foundered faster than you can say "Brandi Chastain's bra."
They said that in 2002 when the U ...[text shortened]... e for a few moments here and there every few years. But year in and year out? Not a chance.
Is it possible to find common ground on what to call the sport before Peyton Manning and Reggie Bush suddenly decide they want to play for Manchester United and Cristiano Ronaldo decides to become the new QB for the New England Patriots? Perhaps "association football" would be acceptable to both sides?
I do agree that one of the attractive things about association football is the lack of timeouts and commercials except at halftime. It's refreshing to have games where the last 5 minutes don't take two hours to play.
And I very strongly agree that the World Cup has saved Americans from having the sports docket be filled with nothing but non-stop chatter about what team His Royal Highness will choose to play for. Major blessing.
I do agree that unless association football adds more scoring, it will never become a major sport in the US -- and why would a sport that is so popular worldwide do something stupid like adding more scoring just to please the US?
Then again -- given the rate that Latin Americans and others are immigrating into the US, association football might indeed become a major sport here in the states sooner than anyone thinks.