Quote:
Originally Posted by HMc
Well put, besides describing cricket as a "freaky small regional sport"
|
It was the first thing that came to mind, but it was only to illustrate the point that there are few other areas of the world that cover as much territory as the U.S. and have so many major big-money sports like we do. You can substitute curling, lacrosse, or whatever. Even rugby and Australian rules football are more regional and less funded when compared to baseball, basketball, and hockey, I would think (but I might be wrong).
Ultimately, because of the way the U.S. was born and the way it grew (and the way the sports grew), I think it'll always be "soccer in the rest of the world" vs. "football, baseball, basketball, and hockey in the U.S.". (Not counting Japan, of course, which has had baseball almost as long as we have.)
And, ultimately, because of what I postulated, why SHOULD Britain give a shit about American football? I don't think they should, or would, until their own leagues of American-style football become popular and well-funded. Much like soccer to Americans, the NFL to Brits is unfamiliar, and ultimately they have no rooting interest in it.