Moreintelligentlife.com is the website of Intelligent Life magazine. Articles about Arts, Lifestyle, Travels, and Ideas

Italy won the World Cup.

the reason is the Commonwealth and, more generally, English expats around the world and their "need" to do something on weekends besides drinking gin and tonics or tea. The locals quickly caught up... In the US, no Commonwealth and immigration from a lot of places, which did not allow an "elite minority" to play a role in developing a following for football/cricket/rugby.
BTW, american football was invented/developed because rugby (that was played in US prep schools 100 yrs ago) was considered too dangerous/rough.

Agreed on that point. We split before any of these sports could catch on here. Rugby and Soccer don't have the stops in play to allow for advertising in the American model, so the money isn't flowing in that direction. Scrolling panels on the sidelines just don't cut it over here. Find a way to make it more lucrative and it would catch on.

That being said, rugby is one of the most popular club sports (non-varsity, non-school supported)at university. This is where Yanks are most likely to pick it up, though it is trickling down to the High School level now. I see this because I've coached a university side at Northwestern University for the past ten years. In the early days I was lucky to get one incoming freshmen a year with any prior experience. Now I get four-six a year. Chicago now has 8+ senior men's clubs of various talent, and each with a designated watering hole picking up World Cup and Six Nations matches. Stanford University has had a club since 1906, and you can find clubs in any state in the union.

Bring your side over for a tour!

Don't forget, the U.S. is the defending Olympic Rugby champions from way back in the 1920's!

All the North American sports have frequent breaks which allow for advertising. As sponsors in North America flock to these sports, the money flows to the proliferation of these sports in a big way. Soccer has to be telecast 45 minutes without a break. Cricket takes almost a whole work day to watch (or 5), even though it allows for breaks. This is one of the many reasons for this phenomenon.

Sports are something you do. Entertainment is something you watch. Lots of people confuse the two.

Baseball and College Football were major American sports long before radio. Their "breaks" had nothing to do with advertising.

b - the US psyche is geared towards selling their culture to the rest of the world, but not too keen on taking up other people's ideas, especially if, as in a) they mostly lose.

Actually it's quite the opposite for most other areas of life - style, food, art are all assumed to be better in Europe, Religion better in Asia, Environmentalism better everywhere but China, etc. But when it comes to sport, we part ways. Cycling, Formula 1, Football, rugby, cricket are of little interest to Americans for whatever reason.

Americans like sports with lots of rules. Even basketball, to compete with other sports, has thickened its rule book. It's kind of a fan competition if you can decipher what's going on on the field before anyone else call.

Now cricket would have some real promise in the States if matches didn't last for days. That's just silly!

I was born in the US and lived there for 25 years but have spent the last 12 in Europe (1/2 in the UK and 1/2 on the Continent). I also love to watch spectator sports and have endeavoured to appreciate the Brit sports as well as soccer/football. I have tried to make objective comparisons, and my conclusion is that Americans do not adopt soccer, rugby et al for one simple reason. The games are inferior to their American counterparts. Soccer has no sense of momentum. Rugby has comparatively unsophisticated tactics. Cricket is subtle to the point of being achingly dull (though the break for lunch is a great idea).

One can level valid criticisms of the American sports: football has too many breaks, baseball is dull and basketball has too much scoring. However, the bottom line is that there is simply more overall excitement and satisfaction in the US games than in others.

Having said that, national soccer competitions like the European Cup and World Cup are far and away better in every respect than a regular season NBA game. That however is not comparing apples to apples. Give me the Rose Bowl over the 6 nations any day.

no...you are very wrong about that. rugby wasnt too rough- in fact we didnt play rugby (to a certain degree). I am an american and i am very aware of how our football started. Back in the early 1900's, specifically 1905, there were 19 deaths alone due to football. Nevermind the hundreds of crippling injuries sustained by the "lucky" players. our football more closely related to your rugby than our modern day football back then was, at the same time, different than your rugby you people call so tough. Our early american football, including the years we started to utilize the foward pass, was very dangerous and rugged. dozens of players would play at the same time all trying to help their team win by getting the ball over the goal line at any cost. the only reason our american football didnt continue in such a tough and dangerous way was due to the president (roosevelt) demanding rule changes which eventualy morphed older styled football into modern day football. Our version of football back in the late 1800s and early 1900s was tougher and more dangerous than rugby ever was and/or will be. Now-a-days, the players have to wear protective gear due to the high risk of injury. If football players were to play without pads the death rate and crippling injury rate would be much higher than that of rugby. Try surviving being blind sided by a 300 lbs [136.4kg] defensive end who can run 40 meters in 4.7 seconds. Todays American football players are so much larger and faster than the average rugby players who call themselves tough. Maybe they are tough but no doubt american football players would be more successful in rugby clubs than rugby players would be on football teams. With the maximum weight and height generally being 6'4" and around 240 pounds or so for rugby players, they would match up well with the average starting quarterbacks of the nfl who are ridiculed for being too small and easily hurt. imagine a rugby player in that position- haha nevermind trying to throw the ball 70 yards!!!
in the end, you brits and the rest of the world can laugh at the NFL for being woosies or pansies because we wear pads. well, if you look at the early american football history you would understand why. and if you look at the average size of our guys vs. your rugby players, WE WOULD ABSOLUTLEY KICK YOU GUYS' ASSES HANDS DOWN. the only thing that rugby players have over american football players would be their hand coordination in general because almost every player in rugby touches the ball while most in the NFL do not (but compared to wide receivers in the nfl or cornerbacks- even tight ends, you guys would still lose) OVERALL THE NFL IS MORE TOUGH IF WE DIDNT USE PADS AND NEARLY AS TOUGH USING PADS BUT YOU GUYS DO BEAT US IN ENDURANCE DUE TO NON STOP 40 MINUTE PERIODS.

That's the most arrogant crap I've ever read. You sound like you're trying to convice yourself more than us that american football is 'tougher'. Professional rugby teams are littered with players who are 240-290 pounds and 6'0 to 6'10.
Your 'WE vs THEM' mentality is immature.