I thought I had nothing to write about today, until I remembered to check the memo function on my phone: sure enough, I had a note about the American sports fan's attention span and how it relates to the beautiful game. Thus, we return to regularly scheduled programming after the earlier current event commetary.

America is a nation of sports fans entranced by games that are constantly stopping and starting; games that entail continuous play don't seem to be in our athletic DNA. Baseball is a game of pauses, with short bursts of action interspered among periods of inaction. The same goes for American football, where the average play lasts only a few seconds. Football uses a clock that continues to run even while no action is occuring; a unique situation that gives the illusion of somewhat continuous play. Basketball follows a slightly different pattern due to the nature of scoring in the game, and the periods of inaction are generally shorter, but regular stoppages are still a significant part of the sport. All of these most American of sports seem tailor-made to our commericial TV; timeouts and side changes give television networks ample opportunity to barrage us with ads.

*NOTE*
I'm leaving hockey out of this argumet for a couple of reasons: 1. It's not as popular in the U.S. as the three I've mentioned, and 2. the whole ice thing makes it SO different that it doesn't fit the argument. That, and the whole mullett situation. Seriously, what's that all aboot?
*END NOTE*

Soccer doesn't fit this start-stop mold. The game, by its very nature, is meant to flow in a way that limits interruption. This major difference presents a fairly obvious question, the answer to which may give some insight into the average American's ability to appreciate the game. Are Americans so conditioned to sports with intermittent action that it makes it more difficult for the casual fan to appreciate soccer?

We've all heard the argument that soccer is "boring" and "slow". Detractors lament the lack of scoring, the long periods of "nothing happening", and the supposed "slow" pace of the game. Meanwhile, those same soccer detractors will spend 3 1/2 hours (as opposed to 2 hours for a soccer match) watching an American football game that contains constant interruption, often only slightly more scoring than the average soccer game (if you draw a direct parallel between a goal and a touchdown: the number of points awarded for TDs only makes it appear that there is significantly more scoring), and a pace that compares unfavorably to soccer over the course of the game no matter what criteria one uses. The argument simply does not fit, and despite the extent to which it has been spread by the anti-soccer propogandists, is easily answered at every turn.

*NOTE*
"Anti-soccer propogandists"? Who do I think I am, Bill O'Reilly? I'm going to try not to make these notes a habit, but I just have to take a moment to let the nasty feeling fade away...okay, we're good. Back to the ridiculous theory.
*END NOTE*

I'm not denigrating American sports. As I've made clear before, forsaking another sport you love to follow soccer and soccer alone is not a program to which I subscribe. But it seems obvious to me that any anti-soccer argument that revolves around the pace of the game is so ridiculous it warrents drawing the comparison to our beloved American sports. The continuous nature of soccer seems to make the game seem even more foreign to Americans, and as a group we don't seem capable of adjusting our minds so as to appreciate the game properly.

All sports have a rhythm, a rhythm fans come to identify as a part of what makes their sports appealing. This is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation, one in which the rhythm of the game is viewed as a positive attribute because the fan is already consumed by their passion for said game. The games we've chosen (or been pushed) to follow and play are, for us, often beyond reproach. Perception is reality, and quite often that perception is based on an erroeous assumption (soccer is boring, football is great) that we've made based on what we've been told rather than what we've experienced.

It's often said that taking even the most stubborn hold out to a game can turn them into a fan. I've heard this statement made for various sports, but most often for those that survive the fringe, ones that most Americans refuse to consider following. Soccer and MLS certainly fall into this category, and I'm sure many people have been converted through this method (provided they agree to going to the game; most Americans are too stubborn to even do that). In a live setting, the flow of the game is much easier to adjust to; TV cameras simply don't allow for the depth of experience and detail that being in the stadium provides. Unfortunately, exposing enough Americans to live professional matches to make MLS a top tier sports league is an impossibility. For the time being, we'll just have to hope that the media works to do the game justice in the U.S.

This problem of rhythm, or intermittent play, or whatever you choose to call it, is certainly a oversimplification on my part. I'm not really sure how much of a role it plays in the American attitude towards soccer, but it seems to me that it may be working on a subconscious level for many sports fans. Americans have come to expect commericials during their sports, and an entire pop culture phenonmenon has grown up around the annual Super Bowl commericials. When a sport appears on the scene that has no natural pauses, that doesn't allow us to do the things to which we've become accustomed during games, how equipped is the sporting nation to deal with it? Because they refuse to deal with it, the detractors spin what is clearly a positive attribute of soccer into a negative, one to be used to continue the anti-soccer movement.

I wish the "anti-soccer" movement would organize; it would make it much easier to attack them head on. I'm guessing the head of any organization like that wouldn't be the brightest bulb: he (or she) might just cause enough of a backlash against his organization to give MLS some buzz. Like I've said, Americans don't like to be told what to do, so if an organization like that existed, it would probably be a postive for soccer rather than a negative. Ha!