LOL, I know. It cracks me up when haters say 'soccer is boring because there is no action' or 'it's too slow.' Soccer, basketball, and hockey are three sports where there is near constant play/action going on. Not football or baseball both of which the games would be significantly shorter if there was less scratching and stepping out of the box. Not to mention laid out on the field or in a huddle.

The real kicker is when haters try to argue that soccer players are not that much better conditioned athletes than football or baseball players. I have to mention to them that BOTH football and baseball players spend at least half the game ON THE BENCH or at least on the sidelines or dugout. Whereas, in soccer the majority play 90 minutes and sometimes 120.

Soccer is boring because there's not much scoring......ever

Same reason why hockey sucks on TV...except at least that's at a faster pace and is a lot more physical.

I've always said though that soccer players are the some of the most athletic well conditioned athletes in the world. Doesn't mean shit though when the sport itself is garbage.

It seems to me it was left to the oldest child of the last wife, probably out of spite to the other women in HL's life if I had a guess.

yes - but the talent pool is bigger there - and the style of play is smoother - its a prettier soccer if you will.

Most definitely - The best Argentina players usually leave before they turn 18 - for chump change to "smaller" European clubs, and then get sold to the bigger teams for a markup that is insane. that's because the exposure in the Argentine league isnt there and the fact that Financially - its a freaking mess. River Plate is a perfect example - they sold their farm - and they had no talent to replace what they had - Relegated to the B division.

Yes - and I think something Sporting is doing well.

The Hunt's probaly would have liked to keep the Wizards but the trouble was the stadium deal. The Hunt's knew if they built a new SOS for the Wizards it would hurt them in getting a new deal done at Arrowhead. Public would have railed them for building a stadium for the soccer team while asking public dollars for new Arrowhead. Even though at the time they were building the new stadium in Frisco, TX for FC Dallas.

It was a joke.

Sure, but you still have a lot of financial problems, and problems with supporters. I was there when River got relegated - not pretty. :D

My only point want that there are very few healthy soccer leagues these days. England is a financial mess, dominated by foreign money. Spain - two teams, and **** all. France - money pouring into PSG. Italy, oh where to start? ;)

Every league has its issues. Germany might be the best model out there that comes quickly to mind...

Yes, but Chunt does very well for himself. He's a private equity/hedge fund type. Outside of the Chiefs, he is still a wealthy man.

Love the Bundesliga.

I grew up in and around soccer. Love it. have a respect for it that few can understand unless they'll lived in Europe and other areas of the globe where it's the primary support. As dedicated as we all are to football, it's amazing how dedicated those locals are to their loved sport.

That being said, if they could reinvent the game, they sure could build-in/change a few rules that get the scoring higher. Simply change the offsides rule and you'd see a dynamic that changes the game drastically. Both offense and defense. And I think it'd make it better for all parties involved (sans the goalkeeper!).

Just my opinion...

The offside rule is one of the biggest PITAs in the game on any level. The officials have 1000 different interpretations of it at the youth level. At the pro level, at least in the US, it's called inconsistently. I hate it.

ROFL

There is only one interpretation to it. The issue is just that the officials are human. You have to be able to see when the ball leaves the players foot, head, etc and also see where the receiving player is in relation to the second to last defender at the same time.

Easy to do if there is a slow pace and the two offensive player are in the same line of vision.

Very hard to do when they are moving at a very fast pace and are not both within the same field of view.

As far as gettign rid of the offside rule....This would destroy the game.

Only fix I could see to make it palatable for American audiences is to not allow an offensive player in the box / within the yard line until the ball has crossed, and give a 2-3 yard-ish "buffer" behind the last defensive player and the GK to the point that an offensive player can't be much farther away without the ball as well.

As much as I hate the rule, we shouldn't tamper with it in any way that differentiates American soccer from international rules. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as a top contributor to the game. Making the rules more offense friendly to appease an American audience would make us look ridiculous.

If Americans want instant gratification and constant stimulation there are plenty of sports and events they can attend to fulfill that purpose. If they can't be sold the nuance, complexity, and intricacy that is soccer then let them go elsewhere.