http://www.livestrong.com/article/223560-most-popular-sports-for-kids/t


http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/07/13/112-million-u-s-viewers-watched-2010-world-cup-up-22-from-2006/56992/

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/major-league-soccer-is-losing-the-tv-ratings-battle-9925


There you go OSH.

DeyDurkie5;958840 wrote:the power of prayer is a great thing.

I can agree with that.

youth soccer numbers are inflated because girls play. Soccer will always be boring as hell for adults to watch.

OSH;958845 wrote:Here you go. It is a bit dated, 2006 article. But it says there are 17.5 million kids playing youth soccer through USYSA. Compare that to Pop Warner having 260,000. Then baseball has 2.2 million.

Speedofsand;958907 wrote:youth soccer numbers are inflated because girls play. Soccer will always be boring as hell for adults to watch.

As SOS has pointed out, soccer is inflated because girls also play. Pop Warner football is just for boys and 250,000 seems very low. I'm not buying that number.

Skyhook79;958898 wrote:I can agree with that.

can you prove it works?

Girls don't play basketball?

Skyhook79;958888 wrote:http://www.livestrong.com/article/223560-most-popular-sports-for-kids/t


http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/07/13/112-million-u-s-viewers-watched-2010-world-cup-up-22-from-2006/56992/

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/major-league-soccer-is-losing-the-tv-ratings-battle-9925

Your first link is basically the same link I gave...it's from the NSGA. The problem with them, it just says "participants." Which, they also rank walking, biking, jogging, etc. Why is that a problem? Because it doesn't track participants in certain leagues. It basically says, "this many kids played this sport at least once." That could be at their own house, in gym class, etc. It doesn't say they participated in youth soccer leagues, youth basketball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.

The second links do not say that the US only cares about soccer during the World Cup. That's like linking the Super Bowl viewership and saying that the US only cares about football during the Super Bowl. Pretty lousy theory there. Of course really popular events are going to have better viewers than certain other events.

Speedofsand;958907 wrote:youth soccer numbers are inflated because girls play. Soccer will always be boring as hell for adults to watch.

dwccrew;958935 wrote:As SOS has pointed out, soccer is inflated because girls also play. Pop Warner football is just for boys and 250,000 seems very low. I'm not buying that number.

I am an adult and I like to watch soccer. My wife is an adult and she likes to watch soccer. So...soccer won't always be boring for adults to watch. There are millions of other people who also agree. Obviously, you two and Skyhook do not like the sport, that doesn't mean others don't.

I wouldn't say things are "inflated." The one "hole" you can poke in any of these stats is that most youth leagues aren't registered in Pop Warner or the USYSA. That would up the numbers of soccer players AND football players. That's why I don't think the baseball and basketball numbers are really stated...there's no real governing body in either of those youth sports -- at least to my knowledge.

Also see S&L:

SportsAndLady;959205 wrote:Girls don't play basketball?

Youth soccer is actually a good thing. But by the time you turn 12 go play a real sport.

OSH;961183 wrote:Your first link is basically the same link I gave...it's from the NSGA. The problem with them, it just says "participants." Which, they also rank walking, biking, jogging, etc. Why is that a problem? Because it doesn't track participants in certain leagues. It basically says, "this many kids played this sport at least once." That could be at their own house, in gym class, etc. It doesn't say they participated in youth soccer leagues, youth basketball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.

The second links do not say that the US only cares about soccer during the World Cup. That's like linking the Super Bowl viewership and saying that the US only cares about football during the Super Bowl. Pretty lousy theory there. Of course really popular events are going to have better viewers than certain other events.





Obviously, you two and Skyhook do not like the sport, that doesn't mean others don't.

Nice try but its not saying the same thing. Millions of people watch the NFL during the regular season and of course viewership will be up for the Super Bowl its the only NFL game left. Soccer goes from an average of 250,000 viewer's for the MLS regular season to 112 million for the World Cup games not just the World Cup Final. Thats a huge,huge,huge gap.
And its not that I don't like soccer but you said it was a FACT more kids play soccer than any other sport and its simply not true. Basketball almost doubles soccer.

Tiernan;961941 wrote:Youth soccer is actually a good thing. But by the time you turn 12 go play a real sport.

Trollololol! :laugh::rolleyes:

^
Kickball with boundaries!

Tiernan;962082 wrote:^
Kickball with boundaries!

You couldn't last a full 90 if your life depending on it gramps.

Tiernan;961941 wrote:Youth soccer is actually a good thing. But by the time you turn 12 go play a real sport.

Like? If you are talking "American football," then why wait until 12? There are all kinds of places where they are playing football in 1st grade -- 6-7 years old. So are you saying that those kids who pick up football after they are 12 aren't real "men?"

Skyhook79;961969 wrote:Nice try but its not saying the same thing. Millions of people watch the NFL during the regular season and of course viewership will be up for the Super Bowl its the only NFL game left. Soccer goes from an average of 250,000 viewer's for the MLS regular season to 112 million for the World Cup games not just the World Cup Final. Thats a huge,huge,huge gap.
And its not that I don't like soccer but you said it was a FACT more kids play soccer than any other sport and its simply not true. Basketball almost doubles soccer.

The World Cup final is the only World Cup game left in the World Cup tournament. Just like the Super Bowl is the only football game left in the NFL season. Heck, if you want to compare things like that, how is the viewership for the UFL, XFL, and other offshoot football leagues? The MLS is a growing league. In 15ish years of existence, they have come a LONG way. Do you know that soccer sold-out Giants Stadium before any NFL team could? That was for a regular season soccer game too. Soccer could've been more popular if multiple things would've happened -- long story and you probably don't care to listen or understand so no sense in talking about it.

Oh, the Super Bowl can't even beat out the World Cup viewership...there were 111 million viewers of the 2011 Packers v. Steelers game compared to the 112 million for the World Cup game. You know what, the UEFA EURO Cup even gets more viewers than the Super Bowl. These are world wide statistics too.

The MLS is coming around. Leagues don't just flourish overnight. Neither do sports if they haven't been promoted/supported by those who have the money. Soccer flourished in the 70s and 80s because of Warner Communications. MLB, NFL, and the NBA/NHL all flourished when they had their support...when the support dwindles, so doesn't the sport's market.

The whole participation thing is still flawed. There is a HUGE difference in "participation" and "playing." The NSGA doesn't track who plays in leagues. They only track how much of the goods go to which sport. Anyone can "participate" in a sport in gym or whatever. But that doesn't mean they all "play" the sport. I still have yet to see statistics that say more youth are in any other leagues than soccer leagues.

OSH;962130 wrote:Like? If you are talking "American football," then why wait until 12? There are all kinds of places where they are playing football in 1st grade -- 6-7 years old. So are you saying that those kids who pick up football after they are 12 aren't real "men?"



The World Cup final is the only World Cup game left in the World Cup tournament. Just like the Super Bowl is the only football game left in the NFL season. Heck, if you want to compare things like that, how is the viewership for the UFL, XFL, and other offshoot football leagues? The MLS is a growing league. In 15ish years of existence, they have come a LONG way. Do you know that soccer sold-out Giants Stadium before any NFL team could? That was for a regular season soccer game too. Soccer could've been more popular if multiple things would've happened -- long story and you probably don't care to listen or understand so no sense in talking about it.

Oh, the Super Bowl can't even beat out the World Cup viewership...there were 111 million viewers of the 2011 Packers v. Steelers game compared to the 112 million for the World Cup game. You know what, the UEFA EURO Cup even gets more viewers than the Super Bowl. These are world wide statistics too.

The MLS is coming around. Leagues don't just flourish overnight. Neither do sports if they haven't been promoted/supported by those who have the money. Soccer flourished in the 70s and 80s because of Warner Communications. MLB, NFL, and the NBA/NHL all flourished when they had their support...when the support dwindles, so doesn't the sport's market.

The whole participation thing is still flawed. There is a HUGE difference in "participation" and "playing." The NSGA doesn't track who plays in leagues. They only track how much of the goods go to which sport. Anyone can "participate" in a sport in gym or whatever. But that doesn't mean they all "play" the sport. I still have yet to see statistics that say more youth are in any other leagues than soccer leagues.

The 112 million viewers was for the whole World Cup tournament not just the World Cup final (that figure was 25 million) The 111 million was just for the Super Bowl game.

fwiw....last April around 400 million tuned in for the Barce/Madrid match.

Automatik;962381 wrote:fwiw....last April around 400 million tuned in for the Barce/Madrid match.

USA viewers? Because that was my original point.

Skyhook79;962384 wrote:USA viewers? Because that was my original point.

Yeah...wasn't really concerned with your point.

Automatik;962387 wrote:Yeah...wasn't really concerned with your point.

Wasn't asking if you were concerned about my point just wanted to know if the 400 million were USA viewers.

Skyhook79;962405 wrote:Wasn't asking if you were concerned about my point just wanted to know if the 400 million were USA viewers.

Yes, they were. Worldwide total was just over 900 Mil. At least for the second match which decided La Liga. Assume we mean that one, not the other.

Hope this helps.

For me, it's American Football, Soccer, Hockey, Baseball, and then Basketball.

Soccer, like hockey, is much better live than on TV. TV just limits the field of view to the point you're just following a ball from player to player. Live, you get to see the play off the ball where the setup and action dictates where the ball WILL go, not where it is. The problem is TV can't show wide angle high end shots of soccer. They want close ups of the players. Of what they feel is 'the action'. It's not the action. A player dribbling a ball is not 'action', yet so many times that's the focus instead of where the midfielders are lining up as they come down the field, the offside line, etc.

Soccer is growing in this country. Will it ever get to NFL levels... who cares. I enjoy both. It's not a bloodsport where one must be crowned victorious.

Skyhook79;962405 wrote:Wasn't asking if you were concerned about my point just wanted to know if the 400 million were USA viewers.

lol you just try way too hard.

Sykotyk;962542 wrote:For me, it's American Football, Soccer, Hockey, Baseball, and then Basketball.

Soccer, like hockey, is much better live than on TV. TV just limits the field of view to the point you're just following a ball from player to player. Live, you get to see the play off the ball where the setup and action dictates where the ball WILL go, not where it is. The problem is TV can't show wide angle high end shots of soccer. They want close ups of the players. Of what they feel is 'the action'. It's not the action. A player dribbling a ball is not 'action', yet so many times that's the focus instead of where the midfielders are lining up as they come down the field, the offside line, etc.

Soccer is growing in this country. Will it ever get to NFL levels... who cares. I enjoy both. It's not a bloodsport where one must be crowned victorious.

Good post!

I agree on the taping of all soccer games. They used to be good. When FSC first came around and showed games, the filming was excellent! You could see the flow of the game. You could see the build-up. You could see the field.

Now, I think ESPN ruined it...and now FSC has followed suit. I think they zoomed in WAY too much. It makes the game appear "faster" or something like that -- that's my guess for why they started zooming in. I don't want to see one individual dribbling the ball. I want to see the game. I want to see the teams. Show them! I don't care if Landycakes has shaved or not the night before...that's not important. Show the game! I think American sports have changed the way soccer is filmed, everyone zooms in on the running back, quarterback, point guard, center, batter, pitcher, first baseman, and whoever else may be around and of importance. In soccer, the whole team is of importance because everyone has a role and is important in the run of play and the game at all times. Soccer shouldn't be filmed like American football, basketball or baseball.

The other side...the American announcers. I don't know if we have one good announcer/commentator/analyst for soccer games. Harkes, Dellacamera, Wynalda, Foudy, and Lalas all suuuuuuuuuuck. I think that turns a lot of soccer fans off games too. I know they are rather annoying. I'd much rather listen to foreign commentators. This is typical for any American sport also, there's not too many I enjoy hearing during televised games.

GolTV and some FSC games are pretty solid at being wide enough to see the field but close enough to be able to see the ball move. But some FSC and all ESPN games are way to close.

Laley23;962422 wrote:Yes, they were. Worldwide total was just over 900 Mil. At least for the second match which decided La Liga. Assume we mean that one, not the other.

Hope this helps.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/02/uefa-champions-league-tv-ratings-first-legs-of-barcelona-real-madrid-and-manchester-united-–fc-schalke-04-nearly-double-from-2010-semifinal-telecasts-on-fx-fox-soccer/91197/

Not seeing 400 million US viewers.

"United States viewership for last week’s first leg of the 2011 UEFA Champions League semifinal round exploded on FOX Sports Media Group Networks, attracting a combined television audience of over 1.5 million people, a 93% viewership increase over FOX Soccer’s 2010 airing of the first-leg semifinal matches, according to figures released by Nielsen Media Research."

"The 2011 matches, which featured Manchester United vs. FC Schalke 04 and Real Madrid vs. FC Barcelona, were televised live by FOX Soccer and FOX Deportes (Spanish) on Tuesday, April 26 and FX and FOX Deportes on Wednesday, April 27, respectively. All four windows combined to deliver 1.506 million viewers, nearly doubling viewership of last year’s games."

Skyhook79;962405 wrote:Wasn't asking if you were concerned about my point just wanted to know if the 400 million were USA viewers.

i see you skipped over my post. you tell a religious person to prove it, and they duck and hide.