Talk:Soccer in the United States

message: "t is often claimed that the Oneida Football Club of Boston, founded in 1862 was the first club to play soccer outside the United Kingdom. However, the club could not have been playing soccer, as they were formed before The Football Association formulated the rules in England"
What a bunch of British anti-American BS, both Durham FC and Sheffield FC are completely accepted as the oldest clubs in Britian, and both were formed 1850's. Here is a news flash for you, people were playing football/soccer (albeit maybe by another name, but again look at the FC in the two mentioned) long before the FA rules were created - in fact people were playing the sport long before it came to the Britian and evolved into the modern game. But that is another story
-- Clayton   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Team 

message: After doing a Google search and looking through Major League Soccer's history timeline, I was unable to find any sources to back up the claim that "MLS broke its all-time record for attendance at a regular-season match, which saw over 92,000 spectators fill the L.A. Coliseum" and let alone in   2006. Perhaps the contributing author confused this statement with the double-header match on 16 June 1996 between the national teams of USA and Mexico and later a MLS matchup between the Los Angeles Galaxy and the now defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny. The doubleheader had 92,216 in attendance. Source: http://www.mlsnet.com/about/. --Amavel 19:20, 22 June 2007
:The editor is probably referring to the Aug 6, 2006 match between Chivas & New England which drew 92,650. This match was the first of a double header that also featured Guadalajara vs. FC Barcelona. --D. Monack | talk 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MLS attendance record

message: Do you think that the educational system of the U.S. has hampered the growth of the game in the U.S. In most other countries, football clubs take in youth players at a young age, but in America, players go through university first. Does this have a significant effect on the game from a youth standpoint? In the 'big four' sports, there are teams for every level of development, but for football, there seem to be teams for small children and adults. Also, I've heard that many schools that have football play a different version to the 'standard' game, with shorter games, etc. In most other countries, schools don't have there own sport teams, forcing students to seek clubs for sport participation.
Do the structures of clubs and leagues also harm the acceptance? The fact that most teams are tied to their leagues seems to me to limit the number of clubs that can exist. In America, all sports have franchising, and that leads to a lack of local clubs which is the most common model for football around the world. Is MLS a negative influence on American football? To me, MLS feels artificial, especially the over marketing of the game, such as the matches between LA Galaxy and Chivas USA being automatically important. Around the world, many derbies aren't very important to the clubs. A perfect example is Chelsea-Fulham, They both play in Fulham, but because they haven't always played in the same division, they don't have a heated rivalry. Do true football fans in the U.S. actually watch MLS? I always get the feeling that it tries too hard. In my opinion football happens, it isn't created. Do you think we should add something about the overall structuring of sport in America to the article? It seems worth a mention. 
I apologize if that was rambling. mpbx 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the page in question?  This isn't a forum, it's a page for discussing the subject of the article. Batman2005 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education and Club Structure Questions

message: I want to make a note regarding this section. 
One factor contributing to the relatively slow pace of soccer's growth in popularity is the competitive nature amongst various American youth sports programs, primarily centered around community clubs in the pre-teen years and secondary school teams thereafter. In some regions of the U.S., High School soccer and American football are both played in the fall and a student generally cannot devote time to both. Until the 1980s, most high schools in the U.S. did not offer soccer at all, and youth soccer programs were extremely rare until the 1970s. Thus, older generations of Americans living today grew up with virtually no exposure to the sport.
I went to high school in the San Francisco Bay Area, and most high schools offer soccer programs in the winter, which conflicts with basketball and wrestling. Here are relatively very few high schools that offer ice hockey, and because basketball rosters are limited to 12, there is an opportunity for more students to participate in a soccer team where the roster can be twice as large. Therefore, students in most regions in California can participate in American football in the fall and soccer in the winter (and baseball in the spring).
::::::I currently attend High School in Sacramento, California. Soccer at my school is a fall sport. Our team competes with teams from all over California, Washington, Oregon and Utah. I have never heard of soccer as a winter sport and am quite sure that the majority of schools offer soccer in the fall, which does conflict with football, cross country and water polo. Women's soccer is played in the spring, however. -Wake266  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wake266 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer as a winter sport in California 

message: Does this reference really belong in the article? Is it of such interest to all looking up Soccer in the United states, and is it really a milestone by which the success of soccer mey be esteemed? I think not. Whoever edits this article regularly should change it. ASAP. Madskile 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed it.--Jersey Devil 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer mom 

message: The section on the female soccer players strikes me as being sexist.... "The women even have their own professional leagues".  This is sexist language.  Also there is a misunderstanding of Title IX.  Title IX does not guarantee females get sports, it makes equality among boys and girls programs a legal requirement.  This applies to much more than just having a women's program (if there is no women's program, technically women are allowed to try out for the mens programs...there are plenty of  female football place kickers at the high school level).  It just demands that there can be no discrimination of males or females (solely based on Gender).
While Pointy football doesn't take many female players, there are plenty of other sports to take players from soccer; lacrosse, basketball, softball, volleyball... this statement seems, again, to be gender biased and not encyclopedia like.  There is no proven connection between the lack of pointy football for girls and popularity of girls soccer...if there is, cite the source.
There is a great deal wrong with this section of the article...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.68.218 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIrls Section 

message: Does anyone know if 90:00 Magazine is notable in US Soccer?  If so is there a good place to mention it in any US soccer Wikipedia articles? Barrylb (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  90:00 Magazine ? 

message: The article states that, "For the first decade of MLS, team jerseys did not bear advertisements, as sportsmen bearing commercial logos is frowned upon in American team sports. However, starting in the 2007 MLS season, teams were allowed to sign up shirt sponsors." That is true for the fronts of jerseys but in the early days of Major League Soccer many teams had sponsors under the numbers on the backs of jerseys.
 Thamesx2 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisements on Jerseys in MLS 

message: I think many inhabitants of Barcelona would be upset to hear their team described as Spanish-speaking in the section concerning the record attendence. Barcelona is in Cataluyna, part of the Catalan-speaking world. For a North American equivilant, I guess it might be like calling Puerto Rico an "English-speaking" country. I will rephrase this, unless anyone objects? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they are offended by that then they are looking to be offended - the people in Barcelona do for a fact speak Spanish and they are Spanish people. It is nothing like calling Puerto Rico an English-speaking country because they don't speak English. The speak Spanish. So the same would be calling Puerto Rico a Spanish-speaking country and guess what? It is. Same as Spain, including Barcelona, is a Spanish speaking country (imagine that). Now if you want to be techincal Americans do not speak English, but you do not see them crying about that do you? American is an offical dialect just like Portugues is different from Spanish. Hardly worth crying about. Is Catalan an offical language? Yes it is. Is it different from Spanish - yes it is. So what? The people in Wales speak Welsh but they are still an English Speaking people and would not complain about being called it.
So yes I object to changing the article because it is pointless. The bigger question is why is Barcelona mentioned in an article about US SPORTS? -- Clayton  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Barcelona

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Oppose WP:ENGVAR ; WP:COMMONNAME ; WP:JARGON. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A disambiguation page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Tgis section is getting put of control and just a bit ridiculous. This was meant to be a small sample of exceptionally notable (that is, quite famous) players who have spent time in foreign leagues. Instead it's become a running list of all players that are currently in foreign leagues, and is constantly updated to reflect any transfers of those players. This needs to stop, as it's totally not the point and lists too many players that just happen to carry US passports, but are nearly unheard of in the US itself. Plus there's issues with WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE with the current form. 
I suggest that the list be limited to past and present players who have played for the US Men's National Team, and not be broken down by foreign league, but alphabetically by players' last names. It would accomplish the goal of showing that US men have played in notable foreign leagues, while being far more stable. More importantly, it would return the proper focus to the section; once again, the point is not to be a running current roster! oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this section is out of control. There are so many US players abroad, and many of them playing in the lower leagues are not notable. I don't think a shorter list is the answer, because then people fight about which players make the list and which players do not. My suggestion would be to create a new Wiki page, move the whole list into that separate Wiki article/list, and have only a link on the "Soccer in the United States" page to that list. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The men in foreign leagues section 

message: National teams in the world ??? It's very close to being a pleonasm , if not being one.
" Both the 1999 and 2003 FIFA Women's World Cups were held in the United States, and the United States has emerged as one of the best national teams in the world. "
Not going to mess with the article. Author please fix.
83.101.83.96 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sounds wrong... 

message: In wikipedia, when you search football, the first choice comes up to be as
sociation football, which is named football. However, in this article, the title states "Soccer in the United States". This totally doesn't match up and loses consistency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.219.165 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you don't need to be told that the word football means American Football in the United States. And in the United States, the common name of the game you want to call football is soccer. That's how it works in Wikipedia. Using the common name is policy, and make more sense. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer should be Football 

message: There are two tags on this article that have been there since 2011.  
The first tag at the top of the page suggests a violation of WP:RECENTISM, claiming that there is not enough coverage of soccer in the U.S. before the mid 1980's.  My view is that this criticism of the article is no longer valid.  This article contains an extensive section on the history of soccer in the U.S., with a link to a longer article re soccer in the U.S. Unless people object, and identify recentism problems still remaining with the article, I am going to remove the banner.
The second tag, located in the section titled Soccer on TV (formerly titled Popularity of soccer in the United States), claims the section or article is not NEUTRAL, and that the tag should not be removed until the discussion on the Talk page is resolved.  The problem here is that there is no discussion/dispute on the Talk page, and nothing to explain why this section or article is apparently not neutral.  Can someone please identify what the problems are, so that contributors can fix the problems?  If people cannot identify any neutrality problems, I will remove the tag.
Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Tags

message: Gentlemen, If I May......
  I have spent over a half-century compiling games of early soccer, rugby and football in the USA. I self-published a couple books and was quickly made aware in 2009 they could not be used for verification purposes.
  Last December in Wikipedia under '1860s & 1870s in American Soccer', my 2008 book titled, 'Evolvements of Early American Foot Ball: Thru the 1890/91 Season' was used for verification purposes. A few selected soccer games from my book were listed for the years 1866, 1868 and 1870.
  Since my book was published in 2008, there have been millions of pages of old newspapers put online. So my book is outdated with much more information having been added.
  The problem is my information does not fit in very well with accepted written histories of foot-ball in America. For example in 1870, you will not find any football games listed under association football or soccer at Rutgers, Princeton or Columbia Universities. All these games are listed under the American football game, and has been for over 100 years now.
  If, after a discussion period, you guys decide not to go against history and not list my games, I will certainly back away. If you decide these games are really association football or soccer, I will begin to submit more information.
Sincerely, Mel Smith, 04/09/2013
OL35srf (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early American Soccer Games 

message: I cut most of the names from this list and moved them to a new wiki page, and since I made a large cut, I thought I'd explain it here. I chopped the list for several reasons (most of which have been stated above already). First, the list of names had become rather lengthy, and so deserved its own page. Second, the comprehensive list led to this page being constantly updated, particularly during transfer windows. Third, the shorter list is more in keeping with the original intent of the list to highlight the most successful Americans abroad. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Americans playing in foreign leagues

message: Unfortunately, this article glosses over major criticisms surrounding Major League Soccer, including the fact that the U.S. does not have a proper soccer pyramid with relegation and promotion into its top league, MLS being a single entity, closed shop rather than a system of clubs, and how the U.S. Soccer Federation is colluding with Major League Soccer to protect it from undue competition. 
The state of the game following the United States' failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup is also missing. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence to the MLS section of the article saying MLS does not have promotion & relegation. Unless there's something more, the neutrality tag can probably be removed. CUA 27 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't understand how not having a pyramid and being a closed shop could be considered valid reasons for complaint. The situation of American soccer is basically the same as the situation of other major sports in this country. The US simply organizes sports in its own way.--Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality: Lack of information on criticism of Major League Soccer 

message: American soccer history is very confusing for people outside the U.S., basically, because of the lack of a relatively single and continuous national federation organizing regular First Division championships. There's no article in Wikipedia explaining this changes and this would be the perfect place for it. The article on the US soccer pyramid isn't historical (and it shouldn't be), but there's a huge need of an explanation for what transpired with 'First Division' teams all along the American soccer history (for instance, in between the NASL fall and the MLS emergence). Hope someone better suited than me takes up the task here. Ipsumesse (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because we don't do sports that way in the US. The very concept of a "soccer pyramid" or a "First Division" does not really exist in the US.--Khajidha (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of a synthetic overview

message: Good day everyone, I would like to begin this claim by stating that I noticed that the ‘Sports in the United States’ article has sections on female sports before male sports. Considering the popularity and historical significance of male sports in the United States, some may find this order unconventional. Would it be more appropriate to follow a structure that reflects the broader cultural emphasis on male sports, or is the current order justified by other considerations? Open to discussing the best way to present this information neutrally and comprehensively. Thank you. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of ‘Sports in the United States’ Article: Gender Order of Sections