Okay, so it's never been long enough, but there's so much space for an article title; so let me qualify for you. As long as the football (football for non-Americans) scoring continues to be the same (a total score of 2.2 per game), in the United States the XXI. Or the XXI.
People's tastes can change in everything within 200 years in any culture or country, but rarely change rapidly when it comes to the most important pastimes. Baseball (1846), Football (1869), American Football (1869), Basketball (1891) and Ice Hockey (1893) have been around for a long time and coming in the near future. On the other hand, in the first 25 to 50 years of the 20s, the only 3 "big" sports in the US were baseball, box and horse racing. And the last two are dying. Allow me to allow me to retire from never comment, after all, somehow I had to call attention.
It's true that football is the world's most popular sport, with 175 countries the "football" is the national pastime. Although this is not entirely irrelevant during our discussion (after all, it can be said that this is a highly marketable sport), the worldwide popularity of football has little impact on American popularity. This, of course, can change if so many people immigrate to the United States from countries where football is very popular. Taking into account the current state of immigration laws, I intend to consider this as a meeting that will not happen in the near future.
Without you being born yesterday (in this case, you have incredible reading skills over one day), now you know football is not popular in the United States because it does not have enough scoring, action, and / or relationship with most Americans. For those who like the NFL (probably the country's number one championship and sport), soccer seems to be a chess match that often leads to a deadlock. Americans with actions such as sports, which include an exciting opportunity to return. We do not want to look at a sport where the team will rise to 2-0 in the first half – we feel like an insuperable leader! Baseball does not have a lot of action or relationship, but it's pretty valuable for many fans to be happy. And Returns Almost always seems to be possible in a baseball game that holds their fans. interest. Football has a lot of scoring and lots of action and relationships. Basketball has a lot of scoring and action but little contact. Hockey has a lot of scoring and action but there is much more contact than you should. Football has little action, little scoring and little contact. Not a good combination for Americans.
Keep in mind that it does not matter if you like football, as it is – just counting whether or not the typical American athletes like it – no matter what. You can really appreciate the strategy of football, but at the same time I will oppose: Why can I look for a boring "strategic" sport when I can watch exciting sports with scoring, lots of action and many strategies (eg American football)?
Sorry, football fans, your sport is a long, upward fight for popularity in the United States. As long as football becomes very popular around the world (which seems very likely), FIFA will not make a major change in the rules. Without major regulation, scoring will not rise significantly, which of course prevents football promotion in the United States. Of course, Major League Soccer would like to play other rules like FIFA, which seems very unbelievable.
Football organizations and their fans are very similar to MLB and fans of tradition and change. Tradition has every place in our society, including sport; but there is always a balance between the sacredness of tradition and the improvement brought about by change. Football needs to make certain changes to create more points if it really is in the US.
I'm less opposed to change than baseball and soccer fans, so let me make some suggestions for the development of football. First, delete the rule that restricts 3 substitutions per game. I see no reason to not allow unlimited substitution such as American football and basketball (my two favorite sports watch). Fresh bodies result in faster, better games and more action. Probably will increase the scoring a bit, but only a bit, as the defenders will be fresh. Secondly, official time is visible to everyone. Currently, only the referee who can add the "injury time" to the official time is the only one who knows how much time he or she left. This is nothing but a moronic. Part of the fans will keep away from the upcoming game and affect the players' ability to strategize towards the end of the game. Third, let players use their hands. All right, I'm kidding. I'm just preparing for your third suggestion. Are you ready? Here it goes: get rid of the rule. Originally (1856/1863), the attacking rule did not allow the attacking player to touch the ball "unless the other side is more than the triple." In the 1870s, after many discussions between clubs, three defenders became. Then in 1925 he changed to 2 defenders and resulted in an immediate increase (from 4700 to 6373 with a 36% increase). Of course, you have to limit it to the site, say 2 players who are outside – another team can throw a lot of players in front of the goalkeeper.
I know football footballers hate this proposal because they claim to ruin the quality of the game. I find their objections very convincing (especially on the basis of my suggestions, that I would decide on two players, either directly or in the corner). More excitement, more action, faster breaks and, most importantly, more scoring. I played football at the high school and tried to watch games at the last 3 World Championships. Even the Brazilian people were boring. Some games were unbearable and I love all the sports.
Please if you want football to be popular in EVER in the US, get rid of the unnecessary rule. Or the goals are bigger. Anything that increases your scoring is a thrilling sport and not a chess match. I love chess, but it's not a sport. And for the typical American sports viewer, neither football.
Source by SBOBET