Now that the World Cup is coming to a close (and the US has been out for a while now), it's time to move on to other things. The biggest thing rocking the sports world right now is the question of which superstar basketball player will end up at which team? Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade are all up in the air, but of course, no one is bigger than LeBron James. Word on the (internet) street is that it's really up between Miami and Cleveland. The latter, of course, is complicated because of their rocky history.
Before going on, I have something to confess. It's tough to admit, and I know my mama and my sister will be ashamed of me, but I'm just not a LeBron hater. Don't get me wrong here, there are things about him that I don't like, sure. Is he confident to the point of arrogant? Yep. Does that somehow mean he's not the most dominant player in the league today? Nope. Maybe a healthy Kobe Bryant could make his case, and Kevin Durant certainly can state his case, provided, ya know, he ever deliver in the post season. And of course, I'd obviously take a complete team like the Spurs over a team that is James and a bench full of scrubs. But if everyone were honest, James is obviously the most dominant player in the NBA.
Sure, James got his rings by colluding to be part of a super team with other team-carrying stars like Bosh and Wade, but there's no mistaking it: James was the guy. He was the leader of that time, no matter how much people might like Wade over James. Bosh stepped up in the post season each year, but by the end, he was a shell of himself. As badly outmatched as the Heat were in the Finals against San Antonio, they were only there because of James. He carried that team. And why is James singled out for going to a team with more talent? What great team didn't have a multitude of incredible talent? Certainly not the Bulls, nor the Lakers, nor the Celtics. Also, how come Shaq never got hate for going to a team with a true number one?
Fact is, LeBron was unjustly criticized for his actual decision, almost in lieu of legitimate criticism of The Decision program. Of course, James rightfully deserves any and all criticism for his handling of announcing the decision. It was completely unprofessional and immature. However, one can't use that as justification for Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert. James was what? 25-ish years old? When it comes to athletes, we tend to expect a lot out of them behavior-wise. It's very easy to forget that sports is really a young person's industry, where the cream of the crop are in their early to mid twenties. And while they're often far more mature and professional than many, they're still basically kids. James brought criticism upon himself for the way he announced his decision, and sure it says something about his arrogance that he conducted it that way, but it's also important to keep in perspective that he was a young man who had an entire city's sports dreams thrown on him fresh out of high school. And he nearly delivered entirely by himself.
But Gilbert's reaction? He wrote a scathing letter and posted it online for the world to see. And the crazy thing is, he only just took it down the other day when he thought he could possibly woo James back to his team! If you haven't read it and you think he should go back to Cleveland, you really should check it out.
"As you now know, our former hero, who grew up in the very region he deserted this evening, is no longer a Cleveland Cavalier."
So he's already acknowledging James as a thing of the past, but also, this is more than criticism of The Decision, but an unreasonable attack on his actual decision itself. James did not desert Cleveland any more than Julius Peppers deserted North Carolina to play for the Chicago Bears. The fact is, James is not required to stay in Cleveland his entire career. Yes, the idea of the hometown hero staying put for a career and possibly bringing glory to his homeland is a compelling one, but athletes aren't slaves or indentured servants. They are and should be allowed to seek new experiences and opportunities and environments. James obviously felt Cleveland wasn't the right environment (frankly, rightfully so). He is under no obligation to spend his entire life in Cleveland. This is a completely unfair attack on James's decision to leave Ohio.
"This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional culminating with a national TV special of 'his' decision..."
At this point, his legitimate, reasonable, and understandable criticism of James's announcement turns into a personal attack on his character. Did James really behave in a more narcissistic manner than Dan Gilbert did with his letter? And really, is there anything more narcissistic than owning a professional sports team in one of America's big three sports? Gilbert has been nothing but narcissistic as an owner. Just look at his role in the last NBA lock out! The thing is, his unmerited personal attack undermines his legitimate criticism.
"...the ownership team and the rest of the hard-working, loyal, and driven staff here at your hometown Cavaliers have not betrayed you, nor NEVER will betray you."
I understand emotions were at a high, but how can anyone possibly defend this kind of attack primarily because a player leaves your team? And speaking of betrayal, why should Cavs fans have any more faith in Gilbert? Gilbert rode James's coat tails for seven years before James finally had enough of a mediocre team built around him while the owner asks him to carry them. Gilbert is every bit as responsible for James's leaving as James himself. Perhaps if Gilbert actually did something to really build a team, rather than just throwing random dudes on the court and expecting too much of his star... And I don't care how much you hate LeBron James, no one can ever say he's not hard-working. It's understandable that Cavs fans would feel emotional in the aftermath of James's departure, but c'mon. He gave you seven years where, frankly, your team overachieved solely because of him. Why is that being completely and utterly ignored here?
"You simply don't deserve this kind of cowardly betrayal."
They also don't deserve Dan Gilbert as their owner. Also, this is sports. What exactly was cowardly about his decision to leave? What? It's his fault that Pat Riley had built a better team than Gilbert and company? Grow up.
He then goes on to guarantee a title. It's safe to assume that he meant for Cleveland and not LeBron, but well, we know how it went. James went on to appear in four straight championships while Cleveland has gone right back to being totally forgettable.
Basic point here is, Dan Gilbert was almost 50 years old and was the head of a major company. He is the top of the chain. James erred with his TV special, but this behavior from the owner is completely unacceptable. Given that Gilbert has also fought against player-rights in the bargaining agreement discussions, I've got to say, why would anyone want to play for a guy like that? Gilbert isn't overtly racist like Clippers owner Donald Sterling, but there is something to be said about an owner who views his players as "his property" and that they owe it to him to stay put. If Gilbert wanted James to stay, he should have spent those seven years he already had doing more to build a championship-caliber squad. He didn't. James left because of it.
Even more were the hordes of angry fans who threw all of their LeBron gear onto pyres. I don't want to make too much of an association with race here, but I can't help but notice that more often than not, these events wind up being angry white people burning the jerseys of black players. (Not suggesting black people don't participate in this as well, but, well, I've watched a lot of those videos and there is a pretty clear common denominator.) It's not even to say that they never burn the jerseys of white players as well. (See Matt Schaub jerseys being burned to a crisp during his tumultuous season.)
However, given, ya know, social history of this nation, the fact that so many people are burning jerseys of their former favorite athletes - an industry predominantly made up of black and other minority players - is almost harrowing to watch. I understand that presumably, most fans don't mean anything by it. They're just upset that their favorite athlete on their team left. It's even worse when they go to a rival team. But it's hard to remove the racial connections from it. It's such a drastic overreaction and burning anything - a jersey, a flag, a cross - is such a powerful and hateful symbol.
When you look back at the owner's response to James's departure, and when you look at the fans' reaction, why would James want to go back there? The people of Cleveland almost literally burnt that bridge, and certainly their owner should not be rewarded for his even more narcissistic and immature behavior. I'm sorry, but suddenly pandering to James because you realize he may consider returning to your team if you offer a sweet enough deal shows just how entitled Gilbert feels. He clearly feels that as long as he puts enough money on the table or offers to give James whatever he wants, James should come back.
And if James decides to either stay in Miami or head somewhere else? What will Gilbert's reaction be? I shutter to imagine. I just hope that his next hate letter isn't written in Comic Sans.
All this comes down to the simple fact that no matter what contract an athlete signs, s/he is not actually property. These athletes don't "belong" to anyone. Maybe the rights to speak with them about contract negotiations do, but the player his or herself do not. Dan Gilbert obviously does not think this is the case. His attempts to lure James back to Cleveland are shallow and callous.
But no matter how big a hater you may be of LeBron James, certainly everyone can agree that if LeBron is expected to have some archaic sense of honor, then surely Gilbert should be expected to as well, yes?
As for going to the team that gives him the most likely shot at winning titles: what exactly is wrong with that? Here in New England, it's funny hearing Celtics fans bash James for doing that while Patriots fans are stoked to have Darrelle Revis, who clearly chose New England because they are perennial Super Bowl favorites. And frankly, what truly great team didn't have multiple top-tier talent? Are we supposed to think less of Randy Moss for coming to New England in 2007? Or what about Jarome Iginla coming to the Bruins in 2013 (of which his contract stated the Flames could not trade him without his permission, and he gave them a list of four teams he would be willing to be traded too - all teams having won the Stanley Cup in the past four years). So why all the hate for James?
I suspect it's that we culturally have gravitated towards "hatin'" as a community activity. The "cool kids" don't like the popular things. At the end of the day, LeBron James is indisputably one of the greatest pure talents the NBA has ever seen. I'm not saying he's the best ever, but he's among the best. It's a little sad to see that so many people would rather tear down greatness than soak it up and enjoy it.
James has made mistakes, to be sure. But he's done far less than Dan Gilbert and Cleveland fans have. He shouldn't reward them. If this is ultimately about "responsibility," then Gilbert and Cavs fans should have to accept responsibility for their actions.
He shouldn't stay in Miami, but he sure as hell should not return to the land that did everything they could to burn that bridge ten-fold.
Soccer is one of those sports in America that seems perpetually on the cusp. Every time the World Cup comes around, our collective interest in soccer grows. People start playing more pick up and the MLS tends to see an increase in attendance. The question is always whether or not that can be sustained. Working against soccer as a commercially successful sport in America is that it's a free flowing game with no opportunities for commercial breaks. There's still room for ad space, but most advertisers probably feel commercials are more valuable than the billboard space around the field. This also means you don't see soccer matches on television very often unless you buy the extra package cable deals that include the specific soccer channel.
To be fair to Major League Soccer, it has been steadily growing over the years in its own right. Created at the end of 1993 as part of the deal with FIFA to host the 1994 World Cup, the first MLS season was in 1996. This is the fifth World Cup since the inaugural MLS season. It's not unreasonable to assume that the World Cup brings new fans into the stands, but they've actually been able to keep a growing number of fans. MLS now averages greater attendance than the NBA and NHL, and more than many franchise in Major League Baseball. Television ratings don't quite follow that trend, but Fox and ESPN have dished out $600 million dollars to wrangle the rights away from NBC. Still, ratings have actually declined in recent years.
Every four years, we usually hear one of two things. The first is how amazing soccer is and how beneficial the World Cup is for MLS. And yes, MLS has seen an increase in attendance of up to 62%. But then we also hear that typical, "who cares about soccer?" argument too. Well, clearly that sentiment isn't accurate anymore. The World Cup on ESPN has drawn viewership in the eight-digit range. So why is it that in the United States, soccer falls into this weird area where more people are caring, but it's still not all that popular? (Though just for the record, MLS has an average attendance close to France's and Holland's top domestic leagues.)
I can really only speak for myself, but as a fairly typical American sports fan, perhaps these apply to many others as well.
WHY I LOVE SOCCER:
1. Free-Flow Game
Americans aren't exactly known for our attention spans. Just look at the design of the big three sports Stateside. Football is stop-go where in sixty minutes of game clock, only about fifteen minutes worth of action actually happens. American football is almost like a war strategy game. You set up your pieces while the other team sets up theirs. You line them up, see what they look like, then try to out-execute the other. Baseball, like football, is structurally built as a sport to give you time to look away. Little action ever happens in a baseball game, so the thrill is in the build up. A team sport, baseball actually builds up more of a one on one focus, with the pitcher dueling each batter. The other guys are there for support. The NBA is fast very fast-paced, but also has a lot of stoppage that gives viewers a chance to tune out for a minute and give their attention a break. Free throws, time outs, and constant clock stoppage all ensure breaks in the play so that while it goes back and forth very quickly, they also give you plenty of breathers.
What makes soccer interesting is that it's a free flowing game. When the ball is in play, everything goes into motion. It's more about the slow build up than the "score quickly" aspect of many American sports. Teams have to move around and move the ball around to try and crack the opposing defense. Sometimes you can move really quickly on counter attacks or sometimes the best way to move forward is to pass the ball backwards and swing it to the other side. Though many find this constant motion engaging, to the untrained eye it can seem like slow-burning chaos.
In many ways, soccer combines things that people love about basketball and football with things they love about baseball. If basketball and football are about setting up your pieces, seeing what your opponent is doing, and both executing and reacting to them, soccer is just the same. Meanwhile, it incorporates the "suspense" and build up seen in baseball. If the most exciting thing in baseball is the moment just before a pitch, then those fans can find solace in the free kick or the corner kick or, if applicable, the penalty kick. Soccer isn't built around set up and the moment before action in the same way that baseball is, but it certainly has it. It's also just like football and basketball in that your team can be playing really well, but one mistake turns everything around. Case in point:
Which actually leads into the next argument:
2. Points Mean More
Often times, people will hate on soccer because it is often a low scoring affair. Games typically end with scorelines like 2-1, 1-0, or even in 1-1 draws. Americans don't typically like draws (although American football allows for it to happen too). Soccer is a lot like hockey in that scoring is actually made to be really difficult. You can go a full ninety minutes without a single goal scored. To the points-focused culture of American sports, the lack of scores leads people to think it's a bore.
Additionally, goals are so difficult and happen so rarely in context of a game that even if your team is being badly outplayed, you still have a chance. Yes, there's definitely a point of no return. Typically if you find yourself down by three goals (and definitely more), it's very unlikely you'll come back. However, because one goal is one point and they're really difficult to score, all it takes is one good play or one lucky break or one mistake from the opponent, and you're right back in it. It's one of the only sports where another team can be truly dominating a game yet find themselves at risk of either drawing or losing instead of pulling out the win. (See how the US made a game of it against Belgium even though Belgium probably should have won that game 5-1.)
With basketball and football, come backs can happen, sure. But typically, if you find yourself being out played in either sport, it's going to take more than one lucky break or good play to pull you back into it. With soccer, unlike with basketball or football, the game can truly break wide open in a matter of a minute. Those other sports tend to be about momentum. Outplaying the other team is really the only way to make up ground on a team that might have been otherwise outplaying you.
While I can understand the disdain for draws, are we really going to sum up the value of a sport in its scoreline? Isn't it the game itself that makes it entertaining? Imagine if you had one of the all time great defensive battles in American football. After sixty minutes of awesome displays of defensive prowess and entertaining physical battles, it ends with a scoreline of 10-3. One wouldn't really describe that as a bad game (though some offensive-minded folks might consider it boring).
Point being, scoring isn't everything in sports. It certainly isn't an indicator of how exciting a game is. Consider that one of the classic Super Bowls in modern history was the first Patriots/Giants game. While Patriots fans may loathe to remember it, it's hard to describe it as anything other than a classic. The final scoreline was 17-14. Sure, that's 31 total points; it's also only five scores between them. If that were a soccer match, it would have been a 3-2 game, which is not that absurd a result.
Football and basketball are also designed to encourage scoring. The different ways to score, with scores having differing point values, decreases the chances of ties. There's no real way to do that with soccer, just as you can't with hockey or baseball. A score is a point. The excitement with soccer comes from how difficult it is to score - just the same as it is with hockey. And, of course, the difficulty of scoring means that when you do see a goal, it's probably the most awesome and ridiculous thing you've seen.
3. Goals Are Pretty Awesome
Even though scoring might not be as common as it is in any other sport, the goals scored are almost always awesome to watch. Sure, not every goal is particularly thrilling, but more often than not, you see a goal and just think, "Whoa...are you kidding me?"
You get this element in all sports, really, but to a lesser degree. Field goals in football are pretty uninteresting to watch unless there's greater context attached (like the game being on the line). Safeties rarely happen and usually happen because of a penalty. And touchdowns are kind of 50-50. Sure, you get crazy touchdowns like the one to conclude the Cardinals/Steelers Super Bowl of a few years ago, but often you get pretty straight forward scores. Rushes up the middle, quarterback sneaks, quick out passes are all common sources of touchdowns. They're important, but you don't typically watch a run up the middle from two yards away and walk away shaking your head in disbelief.
And it's also not to suggest there aren't crazy baskets made in the NBA. You do get insane three pointers or half-court shots and exciting dunks, but they make so many shots and there are so many points scored that you generally don't think much of any of the points scored. There's no other sport in which scoring is as commonly impressive than with soccer.
4. Rules Are Pretty Simple
Unlike most American sports, the rules to soccer are fairly simple and straight forward. There's the handball, offside, fouls, and the box. Then there is the three substitution rule. Otherwise, that's pretty much it. While officiating might be among the worst (see WHAT I HATE ABOUT SOCCER), soccer has perhaps the smallest "rule book" in any sport.
American football is full to the brim of crazy and overly convoluted rules (as Oakland Raiders fans are aware of). Basketball is pretty straight forward too, but there are a variety of complicated rules (five seconds, three seconds, flagrant/technical fouls, bonus). I will still never understand how there is a defensive three seconds rule.
Even baseball, which doesn't see a lot of action in the game, has a variety of silly rules (see infield fly rule). Soccer is a bit like hockey in that for the sake of keeping the game flowing, there aren't an overabundance of rules. It's easy to follow. When the official blows a whistle or a side judge raises a flag, you know it's one of three things - foul, offside, or handball. That's it!
5. Combination of Athleticism and Skill
To be clear, every sport is a combination of athleticism and skill. A wide receiver going up to grab a pass, a shooting guard taking a quick three pointer from the corner, any baseball player hitting the ball, is going to be impressive to watch. Most people can't do those sorts of things, or at least not under pressure. What tends to get lost in soccer's display of athleticism and skill is that they are running around for literally miles and using their feet to move the ball. This basically means that every time you kick the ball, you're putting yourself slightly out of balance and at risk. Yes, flopping is a concern, but it's easy to ignore the possibility that a lot of these players hitting the deck are doing so because when you're sprinting and trying to kick a soccer ball, it really doesn't take much to knock you on your ass or send you flying. This fact makes it even more impressive when you see such high powered, deadly accurate strikes.
Plus, the amount of control these players have is ridiculous. What they can do to the ball with their feet is nothing short of spectacular to watch.
Also consider that these players don't wear any padding except on their shins. And anyone who's ever played soccer knows that those shin pads don't really stop a lot from hurting. If you get kicked in the shin, it's going to hurt. And frankly, those balls aren't insubstantial. (I'm still never sure how people don't get concussed heading the ball as often as they do.) When I was little, someone rocketed a shot that hit me square in the face. It literally knocked me out for a minute.
To be sure, flopping and diving and trying to sell the foul is definitely a problem with the sport, but I'm not sure people ever give credit to the actual toughness of most of these players. Some theatrics don't negate the actual physicality of the game.
6. High Stakes
This is kind of a double edged sword for soccer. Being the most popular sport in the entire world means that every game has a lot of eyes watching and a lot of pressure. For as big a spectacle as the Super Bowl is, it pales in comparison of the World Cup. The entire country watches the Super Bowl. The entire world watches the World Cup. It's insane. In many ways, the World Cup feels almost like one might expect the Olympics to feel. It's a time for national pride to come out in a relatively safe environment. And for the players and coaches, it's a way to broadcast themselves to elite clubs.
Soccer is also a sport with a notorious history as well. Violence among fans is certainly not unheard of and in poorer nations, people have literally been assassinated as a result of a match. Players, officials, and fans even. It might be the only sport in the world in which for some countries, you actually fear for the players or officials after the game. (See Iraq's national team being tortured in the '90s for losing matches.) This isn't so much a reflection of soccer as much as it is the messed up nature of the world, but it does add more weight to everything.
7. Pride
Sports teams often give us a means to channel our pride. On the league level, it is more closely related to our region. It also cultivates rivalries among cities that - while appearing to divide us - actually unites us in a really strange way.
Still, the significance of a nation's international club gives people a safe place to channel national pride without the political attachments. Consider how put-off people might be if they saw a huge crowd of Germans celebrating their German pride. It might be a bit unfair at this point, but given their history in the past hundred years, many neighbors might grow uncomfortable. International soccer provides a safe place to release that pride, without fear of judgment or reading too much into it. (Although it also helps fuel greater rivalries. Greece and Germany seem to hate each other on the pitch, for example, largely because of politics.)
There's also something to be said about international competition. In the United States, we crown our champions "World Champions." Though our leagues have a growing number of international star players, our American teams don't actually play other national teams. And sure, we're one of the only countries in the world invested in American football, so it's safe to bet that any national team we could come up with would beat any national teams created around the world. Yet when you look at the results of the Baseball World Cup, the United States has only won it four times! Cuba is better at our "national past time" than we are. Sure, we won back to back Baseball World Cups in 2007 and 2009, but that was following a 33 year drought where the best we could muster was second place three times in that span. The US hasn't placed above 4th place in the recently established World Baseball Classic. In 2010, the US basketball team finally reclaimed the top honor in the Basketball World Cup after a fourteen year drought.
Of course, this is a bit deceptive given that a lot of America's most talented athletes refuse to play in international games. It makes sense given their money is coming domestically. Still, this is something that soccer has above most American sports: people actually want to play on their international club. Being actual "world champions" matters. There's a neat mixture of international and club play, and it all matters. And no one claims to be the "world champions" because they won their German or Spanish league title.
8. Promotion and Relegation
Europe has an interesting way of organizing their leagues in that teams can essentially be promoted to a better "division" or demoted to a weaker one depending on their performance. This prevents divisions from becoming brought down by too much lackluster franchise running. (Pretty much the entire Eastern Conference in the NBA should, frankly, have been relegated to a lesser league a long time ago.) Clubs don't typically want to be relegated, so even a bad team with a bad season is encouraged to keep trying to win. Losing out is not beneficial in the way that in America, if you have a bad season, you are encouraged to tank so as to get a better spot in the draft. (American fans seem to embrace the "never give up" idea in sports, until it's clear that you aren't going to win, in which case you should intentionally lose so you get a better draft pick, and they get frustrated at you if you still play to win.)
Promotion and relegation is not a perfect system. And indeed, there are often a number of financial hardships facing teams that are relegated (further incentive to play to win and avoid relegation). Still, it can't be any worse than many American leagues, where at some point, intentionally tanking is seen as beneficial. And then, of course, you get persistently poorly run teams like the Cleveland Browns or Oakland Raiders hanging around just filling space on the schedule.
WHAT I HATE ABOUT SOCCER:
1. Stoppage Time
Stoppage Time is one of those elements in an almost self-destructively traditional sport. Soccer fans are much like baseball fans in that any proposed changes are met with almost outright disdain. Perhaps no element of the game gets more ire from casual fans, with criticism being met almost two-fold from traditionalists, than Stoppage Time.
Soccer is a ninety minute game split into two, forty-five minute halves. Americans often roll their eyes at the fact the clock runs up instead of down, but that is kind of silly. A clock running up to fifteen minutes is no different than running down to zero. The big hold up with many people though is that when the clock reaches the forty-five minute or ninety minute mark, the game continues. The officials add a seemingly random amount of time back onto the clock. Keeping the clock running means that the matches end at roughly the same time. Rarely does a match take longer than two hours (something else fundamentally different from American sports where we're used to planning our entire afternoon or evening around a game).
But the problem is that Stoppage Time makes no sense and often becomes frustrating. There's no rhyme or reason to it, other than that it usually lasts between one and six minutes. Supposedly, the time is added back on to make up for the time wasted from injuries, goals, and substitutions made throughout the half. The theory goes, Stoppage Time keeps teams and players honest because if they flop and fake injuries or stay down for longer to stop play or take longer on free/goal/corner kicks, that time comes back on Stoppage Time.
The problem, of course, is that it doesn't. Stoppage Time has never and will never match the time wasting done in a half. Taking four full soccer matches available online, I edited each match to reflect a clock that stops when the ball is dead and not in play (similar to how it works with basketball). Almost always, the ball is only in play for thirty to thirty-five minutes. That means that on the best of days, the ball is live 80% of a given half. The biggest discrepancy in a half that I found was in a 2012 match up between Germany and Belgium. In the first half, there were no injuries and no substitutions, but there were two goals scored. One minute of extra time was added. Yet in the 46 minutes of the first half, the ball was only "live" for a total of 30 minutes (with an error margin of 10 seconds in either direction). That means almost an entire third of the half was just time waster. Further evidence that Stoppage Time is completely random: the two goals alone killed about two minutes and fifteen seconds off the game clock. Yet only one minute was tacked on at the end.
The second half wasn't much different. There were several injuries that took up to a minute each to sort out, four substitutions, and two goals. Three minutes were tacked on to the end. In the second half, the ball was in play for a total of 33 minutes and 55 seconds (error margin of 15 seconds in either direction). And the weird thing is, even that is a bit deceptive since Germany had taken a 2-0 lead early in the game and had resolved to kill clock with a brutal possession game. When breaking down the biggest time wasters of the game, goal kicks and goals scored were easily the most time consuming dead-ball events.
And this is absolutely the norm. If the argument is that Stoppage Time keeps players honest and prevents them from killing time, then the argument is extremely flawed. In reality, taking extra time for throw ins, corner kicks, goal kicks, substitutions, and "injuries" is always beneficial for a team in the lead because that time is almost guaranteed to disappear. Relying on Stoppage Time to prevent time wasting is hardly as effective as stopping the clock.
Purists will then argue that stopping the clock will break up the flow of the game. This argument, of course, makes no real sense either. The flow of the game is already being broken up by time wasting! Players already stay down longer to stop the flow of the game. Goalies take extra time on goal kicks, free kicks either happen very quickly or take forever to set up. The game is already chopped up with dead ball things. Stopping the clock does nothing to break up the flow of the game. It merely creates a more accurate means of time keeping and means that you actually play the amount of soccer intended.
I can appreciate the concern that stopping the clock might open the doors to commercial breaks and TV time outs, but soccer is totally different from basketball and American football in the way that stopping the clock doesn't stop the game. It wouldn't create commercial breaks (unless, perhaps, in the case of major, time-consuming injuries). This seems like a legitimate concern, but one that is slightly misplaced.
The 2014 World Cup has created a strange new argument. We've seen an almost absurd number of Stoppage Time goals this year. The argument goes something along the lines of, "well, if you didn't have Stoppage Time, you wouldn't get this:"
A classic and iconic moment in US Soccer history, to be sure. And, of course, it happened in the 91st minute - Stoppage Time. But here's the thing: the time in Stoppage Time doesn't disappear if you stop the clock. These late, last gasp goals happen if you stop the clock! If you consider that almost 20% of any given half is literally just time wasting, then those two, three, four minutes of Stoppage Time would just be a part of that.
Bottom line: there's absolutely no real reason that Stoppage Time is still a thing except for the traditionalists who fear change (and, perhaps, efficiency). It absolutely does not prevent teams from killing time. There's no reason not to kill time if you've got the lead. Stay down an extra minute! Odds are extremely favorable that that minute isn't coming back. However, Stoppage Time is confusing, arbitrary, and random. And that is quite a turnoff.
2. Flopping
Soccer fans are fast growing tired of hearing casual fans (and non-fans) complain about flopping in the sport. "Flopping" (or more affectionately referred to as "diving") is actually existent in all sports. Any Celtics fan from the last decade is more than familiar with Paul Pierce's tendency to flail around to draw a foul and get to the line instead of actually playing the game. And in the NFL, wide receivers will do much to sell a pass interference call.
However, it is actually especially problematic in soccer. Flopping happens a lot. To be fair to the players, most casual (and non) fans don't or can't appreciate the actual agony felt in many of those collisions. Anyone who has played soccer knows that shin pads do little to actually prevent pain. And when you're sprinting around for an hour and a half, it doesn't take much to knock you over. Nor does it take much to make you sore.
But then you see crap like this:
Again, every sport has more than its share of theatrics, but against Mexico, Arjen Robben had more flops than shots on goal. And in the end, it paid off. Sure, did he get legitimately fouled in the box earlier in the game that got missed? Yeah. But his biggest flop of the entire game at the end of the second half drew a penalty in the box for the game winner. His flop literally won the game for Holland.
Before Robben's classic game full of flops, you can look back at the opening of the 2014 World Cup in which Neymar's flop inside the penalty box drew a foul call from the official, and it tied the game up. This was also one of the most egregious flops of the entire tournament. It's one thing to have all the theatrics of rolling around in agony; it's another to have athletes literally give up on a play, playing for a call instead of the ball. Again, this happens in all sports, but it does seem to happen a lot in soccer. In fact, the most successful international clubs (namely in South America and Europe) get nearly twice as many fouls called in their favor than anyone else in the world. It's so obviously a problem that the New York Times even published an article that suggest the US doesn't flop enough!
What's funny is that it's primarily a problem in the men's game. One study found that in men's soccer, more than eleven injuries occur, with an average of over seven minutes of time wasting. The women's games, by comparison, average just under six injuries per game with just a couple minutes of time wasting. (This is actually one of the reasons I actually sometimes prefer women's soccer.)
I understand that soccer fans hate hearing about the diving problem, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to deny that it isn't a big problem. Every sports has theatrics.
Even the NFL has a bit of a problem with theatrics.
It's hard to tell if soccer ultimately has a worse case of the flops than the NBA or NFL, but one of the differences is that flopping does seem to be more successful in soccer than those other sports. Flopping in the NBA - like most calls in the NBA - depend on your star power and reputation. LeBron James, for example, gets away with a lot of flops. Chris Paul does not, because he has a reputation as a flopper so officials are already looking for it. In the NFL, flopping by kickers and punters is supposed to be a penalty itself, but it's never called and if everyone were honest, they are probably coached to do so.
Though counting "flops" in any game of any sport is an extremely time consuming endeavor and thus, is difficult to determine whether there are more flops in a particular sport, it does feel like not only does soccer suffer more, they're also more beneficial. FIFA - like the NFL - is supposed to prohibit the behavior. Diving is itself punishable by a yellow card. In most occasions though, the "simulation" actually results in a foul or card for the opposing player. In 2009, UEFA suspended Eduardo da Silva for two games after video replay showed him flopping on a play that, in the game, netted him a penalty kick. MLS has also implemented post-game fines for players flopping. Ultimately though, these efforts don't appear to really be bucking the trend (though they should still exist - it would be terrible if a player was suspended on a second yellow card he got for contact with a flopping player).
Part of the problem is that players understand that theatrics will eventually pay off. However, smart soccer players only account for part of the problem:
3. Officiating
The other part of the problem is that FIFA officiating is notoriously awful. The rules might be simple, but it also leaves a lot of room for judgment. When watching more and more soccer matches, it's easy to realize that no one really knows what constitutes a foul. Officials in every sport call games differently. There's very little consistent in games that largely rely on judgment calls. Soccer doesn't just rely on judgment calls; it also does little to make life easier for the official.
Where American football is constantly trying to figure out how to officiate games more efficiently - instant reply, re-aligning refs, having multiple refs on the field - soccer is content to just let basically one guy do everything. There is one side judge on each half of the field who is responsible for calling offside and perhaps fouls close to them. The problem though is that they are stationed on just one side of the field. It's often difficult to see plays happening all the way on the other side of the field. Then, there's the time keeper (who, as we discussed earlier, just makes stuff up).
Finally, there is the main official - the only one on the field. There might not be a group of referees as fit as soccer officials. They have to do almost as much running as the players! But that's also part of the problem. Because the game can often move very quickly and the official has to keep up, and because the field is so large and there are so many players on it, the officials seem to call games based on reactions rather than what they actually saw. It's a lot of "I think I saw."
One solution might be to keep one official on the field and then having two officials - one on each end by the goals - responsible for just one half of the pitch. This would make it easier to officiate on fast counter attacks, or just help out given how many players are on the field at one time. Soccer has added the tennis replay technology for goals, so see if a ball crosses the line in really close situations. This is obviously a great addition, and it's strange that it took so long to implement. Still, officiating in soccer is easily some of the worst and most horrendously inconsistent in all of sports. Adding a couple of more officials could help that. If the argument against it is that it will get confusing, I'd just point out that in the NBA, multiple officials call fouls and things. There's no reason it can't apply to soccer as well.
Or, they could just put two linesman on opposite sides of the field with their flags. Side judges already make calls like offside, foul, and handball. More eyes on the field of play haven't necessarily helped the NFL - where officials often miss the initial action and only look at an area once a player hits the deck (which is strange because it means officials are making calls based on what they think happened rather than what they actually saw ) - but it certainly can't hurt.
4. Penalty Kicks
Penalty kicks are another point of contention between new fans and purists. Personally, I hate them as a game decider, but understand their significance in the game itself. However, something one can take away from this year's World Cup is how PKs are often rewarded in a way that isn't in the spirit of the rule. The idea of the penalty box is to prevent defending players from committing egregious fouls as attacking players zero in on goal. It makes sense. It's kind of like how in American football, pass interference is such a big call to prevent defensive players from blatantly taking out the receivers when they can. It keeps defenders honest.
The insanely high rate of PK conversions reinforces this concept. It varies very slightly by league, but PKs are converted upward to 80% of the time. The rules surrounding PKs also make things extremely favorable for the kicker. For starters, the ball is placed so close to the goal that a keeper has only a half second to react. The keeper is also not allowed to move forward off the goal line, even though the kicker can start and stop his approach on the ball at will (see Neymar).
The problem is that many fouls inside the box are not really egregious enough to merit a PK. It's not to say fouls don't happen in the box that affect the play, of course. But look at that Robben play again (in the "flop" section). If you watched that play live, it's impossible to say if that were developing into anything. Mexico's defense was pretty good that day, and either way, you can't say for sure that that play was going to end in a goal even if he were legitimately fouled (which he wasn't). Even his play earlier in the game in which he was actually fouled in the box to a no-call, you can't say for sure he was going to score. And it wasn't the most egregious of fouls.
Point being, to aware a PK on most of these fouls seems like overkill. Awarding a PK is almost the exact same thing as awarding a goal. Tell me if most of those fouls, even if totally legit, merit a goal as a punishment? The way PKs are often awarded simply by "being in the box" instead of what is actually happening on the play makes for what is easily the harshest penalty in all of sports. The only thing kind of like it is the NFL's pass interference in the endzone. If you chuck a ball into the endzone from your own 40-yard line and the refs perceive contact on a receiver in the endzone, the ball gets placed at the 1-yard line. That's literally a 59 yard penalty, and barring a turnover, is practically guaranteed to result in points. It's one of those things where the spirit of the rule is often ignored. Sure, in neither case are points absolutely guaranteed. I don't have statistics on how often PI calls in the endzone result in points (either a touchdown or a field goal), but it's safe to assume that it's a pretty high percentage as well.
The other problem is the overtime rules for soccer. For some reason, they abandoned the much superior "Golden Goal" rule, which is quite simply first-to-score wins. And if no one has scored after thirty minutes, it goes to PKs. PKs are a terrible way to decide the outcome of a game. It's almost like if an NFL game were still tied, they lined kickers up at the 40-yard line and had them kick until someone misses. Or if the NBA decided a game by having players go through free throws until one team misses. Sure, it's exciting and the build up is thrilling. As much as I hate PKs as a way to end a game, even I can admit that there is nothing more tense than penalty kicks. Even if the team I'm rooting for wins (as Costa Rico did against Greece), I still feel a little let down that they took a great game and reduced it to chance and guess work.
Perhaps I wouldn't mind PKs so much if they altered the rules from in-game PK rules. For example, what about letting the goal keeper move forward when the player begins his approach to the ball? Guys like Neymar do a strange stutter step thing, rushing, then stopping, then rushing again before making the kick. It's obviously a ploy to try and draw the goal keeper off the line so in the rare circumstance he miss a kick, he gets a do-over. Wouldn't it be more fair and exciting if the goal keeper got to rush the player once he begins his approach? It'd still be an advantage for the kicker, but at least the goal keeper can actually have a real shot at saving it, rather than seeing if they guess correctly, get lucky, or the kicking player cracks under the pressure and misses (which is actually more common than a keeper saving it, especially if you're an English player).
What's kind of funny, by the way, is that goal keepers actually increase their chances of saving it if they don't move much instead of diving in one direction or the other. The kicks are so close and happen so quickly that even guessing correctly still means the kick is likely to go in. Yet the perception is that if a keeper - even realizing that his chances are increased by not moving far - doesn't move, fans will think he didn't try. Often times, trying to stop a PK increases the likelihood of the PK going in. It's this sort of "illusion of effort." Goalies even admit that even if a kick goes right down the middle and they dove to one side and it goes in, they feel worse if they don't dive to the sides.
I don't disagree that PKs are a better alternative to "keep playing until someone wins at the end of a period" idea. After 30 minutes of overtime, those players are dead tired and their legs are jelly. They've got nothing left. The argument then goes that for player safety and welfare, it should go to PKs instead of another period. This is a fair argument, of course, provided you ignore that they specifically abandoned the Golden Goal rule, which means that players must play an extra 30 minutes even if they score a goal first. We saw this twice this week. After 90 minutes of a standstill, Germany scored in the first two minutes of Extra Time against Algeria. This meant that they had to play 28 more minutes for the same result as a Golden Goal scenario (Germany ultimately won 2-1). This also happened for Belgium, who after being stopped by Tim Howard for 90 minutes, scored in the first few minutes of Extra Time against the US in a game that also ended with the same result as Golden Goal rules. (I'd be curious to find out what percentage of games that go to Extra Time are won by teams that score first. My guess is that they more often than not win.) And really, what exactly is wrong with Golden Goal rules to begin with? As a US fan, I can appreciate having had that opportunity to tie it back up again, but at the same time, if we're going to give up a goal in under three minutes of Extra Time, we deserved to lose.
Penalty Kicks just leave a bad taste in the mouth of what was otherwise a great game. It's a bad way to decide a game, and in-game PK calls are often a ridiculous reward for a foul that more often than not wasn't worth a goal. It's not called in the spirit of the rule. Especially given how bad the officiating is and how bad the flopping situation is.
Overall, soccer is one of the great sports of the world. It's a shame it has such a traditional, purist fan base, because there is much that could be improved upon. Still, flaws and all, it's a growing sport in the US and only a matter of time before it finally breaks through the cusp.
Still, my argument is not that soccer is the most entertaining or best sport in the world. If you find it boring to watch, nothing is going to convince you that it isn't. While I can respect baseball, you'll never convince me that it's exciting (or even entertaining, really). So I get it. I'm just making the case that some of the arguments against soccer are rather unfair. It's more about respecting the game even if you don't like it. A lot of the complaints I hear from American sports fans often makes me wonder what everyone's idea of "sport" really is. I love soccer, and I don't think there's a better sporting event in the world than the World Cup. Of course, I still think the sport has much to improve on.
