They kick a freakin ball, run after it and kick it again. It takes coordination thats all. And lots of running. Football encompases so much more. Throwing, catching, kicking, running etc. And they don't even need to score in soccer and its acceptable. Well, we don't have a lot of talent so one score should suffice. If not, its okay. Hell, the Redskins scored twice against us. They would be world champions if they were a soccer team.

Pretty well sums it up.
It is a poor countries sport, all you need is one ball and a big ass field, with a fish sein at each end.

Do you know how much harder it is to receive a ball crossed to you from 20 meters out without using your hands than it is to catch one thrown to you from 50 meters out? Do you know how hard it is to put precise spins on balls when you pass/cross them so it reaches your target without being intercepted? Do you know how hard it is to control the ball on the run when a dude is trying to take it away from you? I mean, these are some ludicrous comments you guys are making.

Every professional sport takes insane amounts of skill and groomed talent, quit being ignorant. I have the same argument about baseball with foreign people who don't get it and think it's some talentless hacks hitting and catching the ball when in reality it's probably the hardest of all sports to be "pro" good at.

It really has nothing to do with the above. Some Americans don't consider it good "sport" unless it is full-contact. That's pretty much it.

I'm 100% cool with that. What I, like some others here defending soccer, DON'T get is people saying it's a game that requires no skill/talent.

Anyone who says that has obviously never played the game and, therefore, has a moot opinion.

I'd be willing to bet that if you started a poll asking why Americans don't like soccer, and included "it's not a full-contact sport," that reason would rank behind "hooliganism," "blatant acting on fouls" and "90% of play is between the boxes."

I don't like it because it's boring, tedious and there's almost no scoring. If all these ****ing punks were watching an exciting game instead of this crap, perhaps they'd get all that energy out of their systems DURING THE GAME and wouldn't feel the need to destroy the stadium and surrounding neighborhood afterward.

Possibly. But, I'd be willing to be that 90% of the play in football is between the end zones, too.

So, you find a 10-7 football game as equally boring?

Blatant acting on fouls is annoying, I agree, but it's something fairly new to the game and isn't done by everyone. As far as the other two? Hooliganism is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the game itself and "90% of play is between the boxes" is HIGHLY dependent on 17 different factors. Even if that was a fact 100% of the time though, there still would be nothing wrong with that. It's definitely not catered to people with ADD, I'll say that much.

At least a 10-7 game should feature some hard hits and good defense.

And a 1-1 soccer tie would also feature some very good defense. Like I said, when pressed, most Americans will acknowledge it's about the contact. Would you still watch the NFL if it was no-contact/flag?

One of the interesting dynamics of soccer is that the offense and defense is on the field at the same time, of course.

I think the problem here is that there's no blatant progress and there's a constant flow of back and forth (whether it's 50-50 for both teams or 80-20 with one team dominating). American football provides clear goals which are to be reached in a set amount of tries. It also provides people with constant breaks so they can reset their attention spans.

So, you are saying that Americans don't like soccer because they have limited attention spans?