Byline: LEONARD KOPPETT Columnist
WILL THE SUCCESS of the U.S. team in World Cup soccer make that sport as popular here as it is in the rest of the world?
I don't think so, but my reasons are somewhat different from the conventional wisdom.
Soccer's limited popularity on the U.S. sports scene is attributed to 1) too little scoring; 2) unsuitability for television commercial breaks and close-ups; 3) widespread ignorance of and indifference to the game's finer points; 4) obstacles presented by the entrenchment of baseball, football and basketball; and 5) the absence of overt violence provided by American football, hockey and boxing.
All that may be true enough, but I believe two much deeper and stronger forces are involved.
One is the enormous difference between watching and playing.
The other is a view of sport that differs from European and other cultural attitudes.
The first explains why millions of children and young people who play soccer with such pleasure and enthusiasm do not grow into a huge audience for professional soccer. For participants, it is a wonderful game, as satisfying as basketball and safer than football at the amateur level. But watching is entirely different.
How many people like to play cards? Just about everyone. How many people would pay to watch somebody else play cards? Very few. So the amount of participation does not automatically translate into paying customers.
Now consider the more than 100 million tickets bought at high prices for major league sports each year. How many of those purchasers have played those sports at that level, or even as high as major college? The spectator's pleasure is not a simple projection of lower-level experience, but seeing people do what we know is exceptional.
Our major spectator sports have been refined to appeal to watchers. With television, those tastes have been narrowed to what works best on the screen.
U.S. soccer has a substantial and growing following. But like tennis, golf, track and field and many other sports, it doesn't rise to the level of commercial exploitation of the four major team sports.
Events such as the World Cup and the Olympics capture universal attention at four-year intervals. Our regular majors dominate the day-to-day sports interest that sells newspapers and fills TV time.
Europeans see an aesthetic element in sports. They respond to form as well as result, and appreciate an artistic aspect to which we're largely indifferent. High-level soccer, to those who understand it, provides this sort of 'beauty' as well as strategic intricacy when one can see the whole field.
The U.S. response is less concerned with form. We focus on tangible results: the ball goes through the basket, over the fence or across the goal line. We love the spectacular slam dunk or diving catch, but our main concern is the routine play and score that decides the game or pennant race.
A knowledgeable soccer fan can honestly say, 'I saw marvelous things done today,' even after a scoreless tie, and come away satisfied. But a baseball fan, rooting for his team, is no less pleased with a three-run homer that just clears a fence as with a 450-foot blast in the same circumstance.
Finally, there is national pride. It's fundamental to the Olympic, World Cup and other international competitions. In most countries, a national team's victory or defeat matters to the whole nation, not just fans of that sport. We don't have such traditions. All our sports loyalties have been local or sectional, tied to club or school. We simply don't feel our national honor is at stake. We root for our city or school, not for international glory.
Soccer has its place in our scheme of things. But it won't get the hold on us that a World Series, a Super Bowl, or even an NBA championship or the Stanley Cup have. The kids who play soccer today will still buy Mariners, Seahawks and Sonics season tickets when they grow up, and tune their TV sets to them.
Hall of Fame writer Leonard Koppett writes a weekly column for the P-I. You can contact him at sports@seattlepi.com
