The Ball is Round: Football in America

[Tom_NUFC]

WI Association Football had established itself as the dominant Football code in the USA during the 1870s?

I think it's quite plausible.

Prior to the 1860s, Football in the US and Britain were quite similar.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw it transformed from a wild, anarchic past time. Although it was still often rough, proper rules began to be formed, and although the rules varied greatly, it was played amongst the schools and universities of the elite.

In Britain, a number of English institutions formed the Football Association in 1863 to agree on standardised laws to allow the different schools and universities to compete against each other.

The FA rules favoured kicking the ball and outlawed the handling and carrying of the ball.

Those in favour of a handling game then left to form the Rugby Football Union - their own separate code.

In The US, colleges and universities were also searching for standardised rules. Inter-Collegiate football games usually involved playing two matches - one of each of the instutions' prefered rules.

In November 1869, Princeton and Rutgers met, playing rules based on (though not entirely replicating) Association rules.

Over the next couple of years, Yale, Columbia and several others joined with them, and decided upon Association rules to be the rules that Inter-Collegiate Football would be played by.

Harvard however prefered their hybrid kicking and handling rules, and played a two match series with the Rugby playing McGill University in Montreal. Harvard were impressed and decided to adopt Rugby rules themselves.

They then set about persuading the other US institutions to switch, which gradually they did. And over the years their version of Rugby evolved into the North American football code.

What if the other colleges had been firmer, forcing Harvard to switch to their rules.

Although, the American code bears a stronger resemblance to Rugby, its spread is much more like that of Football.

In England, Rugby Union remained the game of the middle and upper classes until well into the twentieth century - and to some extent that notion remains to the present day. Amateurism, seen as virtuous by the elite and middle classes remained at the top level of English Rugby Union until the mid 1990s.

The Association and American codes may have started out as the sport of the elite, but those elite then spread it to the masses, establishing church, community and factory teams. Both codes quickly caught on amongst the working classes, who established their own teams and began to dominate. Both became seen as 'the working man's game' and the domination of the working classes led to professionalism and the decline of the elite's virtues of amateurism. (In Rugby this led to the professional advocates separating from the Amateur Union to form the Rugby League - which itself suffered due to only being popular in a small geographic area).

Both the British elite and workers took their games abroad. Cricket and Rugby were largely confined to the Empire in terms of popularity, but the Europeans and South Americans took to Association Football, and the game spread.

Rather than playing an isolated sport, they would share a passion with the peoples of Britain, Europe and South America.

Could a USA that was crazy for Football from the 1870s have meant that they were more outward looking and less insular?

 

[Calgacus]

Like the title reference. If football took off early on, it would probably have become pretty big. One of the reasons why immigrants from footballing countries (notably Italy and South America) didn't follow the game in the US is that they wanted to fit in, and so many of them chose that most American of games, baseball. In TTL they would have no hesitation in choosing football, with which they would already have been familiar. Football would have been the dominant sport in cities like NY and Chicago, and eventually the whole US.

 

[Atreus]

A timeline where the US actually preforms well in the world Cup?

Actually, if the American sport is Football, then they may do pretty well, just based on the pool of talent they can draw on.

 

[Jasen777]

If soccer (yes I said it) was America's sport we would do very well. We have the athletes. We have the money. We have the drugs.

I don't know if it would have made the US any more outward looking. International competition didn't take off for quite some time after the 1870's (afaik) and I don't see why the US having it would make it much earlier.

 

[Tom_NUFC]

I agree that the US would have become very succesful.

It's also a good point about international competition, although by the late 1890s international matches were beginning to occur, despite there being no international tournaments at that time. The four British nations (who all compete separately in Football) began playing 'international' matches amongst each other in the 1870s, the Scotland v England match of 1872 being the world's first International game. Perhaps game against the USA would have also taken place - granted, not with the same frequency due to the distances. But I could see 'tours' taking place - the British teams going to the USA to play a series of games, and the Americans touring Britain etc.

The world cup didn't begin until 1930. And I suppose it's worth considering that none of the British nations entered any of the three pre-war World Cup tournaments. England debuting in 1950.

But the Copa America (then known as the South American Championship of Nations) began in 1916. If the US had taken to Football, maybe it would have been a competition for the whole of the Americas (these days the Copa America remains a South American tournament, which invites Mexico and some times the USA as 'guests'). But then maybe, they would have been 'sniffy' like the British.

It was common for English clubs to play European and South American opposition on tours and in friendly matches since the 1890s, but when in the mid 1950s, the European club competitions were established - providing competative matches, it took the English Football League (as opposed to the FA) a couple of years to consent to English League clubs taking part "with a load of whops, huns and dagos", as the then chairman put it.

So, perhaps, had they been playing the game almost as long, the US might have held similar views to international or pan-American club competitions.
Then again, Scotland has been playing the game almost as long as England, and the Scottish champions, Hibernian took part in the inaugural European Cup competition of 1955/56, so perhaps not.

 

[Calgacus]

I agree that the US would have become very succesful.

It's also a good point about international competition, although by the late 1890s international matches were beginning to occur, despite there being no international tournaments at that time. The four British nations (who all compete separately in Football) began playing 'international' matches amongst each other in the 1870s, the Scotland v England match of 1872 being the world's first International game. Perhaps game against the USA would have also taken place - granted, not with the same frequency due to the distances. But I could see 'tours' taking place - the British teams going to the USA to play a series of games, and the Americans touring Britain etc.

The world cup didn't begin until 1930. And I suppose it's worth considering that none of the British nations entered any of the three pre-war World Cup tournaments. England debuting in 1950.

But the Copa America (then known as the South American Championship of Nations) began in 1916. If the US had taken to Football, maybe it would have been a competition for the whole of the Americas (these days the Copa America remains a South American tournament, which invites Mexico and some times the USA as 'guests'). But then maybe, they would have been 'sniffy' like the British.

It was common for English clubs to play European and South American opposition on tours and in friendly matches since the 1890s, but when in the mid 1950s, the European club competitions were established - providing competative matches, it took the English Football League (as opposed to the FA) a couple of years to consent to English League clubs taking part "with a load of whops, huns and dagos", as the then chairman put it.

So, perhaps, had they been playing the game almost as long, the US might have held similar views to international or pan-American club competitions.
Then again, Scotland has been playing the game almost as long as England, and the Scottish champions, Hibernian took part in the inaugural European Cup competition of 1955/56, so perhaps not.

Yes, but Scotland also had the same attitude as England to FIFA and to the early World Cups.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Soviet Union wins the Cold War, and Earth descends into a new Dark Age. Because association football is a communist sport.

 

[Bill Cameron]

WI Association Football had established itself as the dominant Football code in the USA during the 1870s? I think it's quite plausible.

Tom,

I don't think it's possible in the slightest and I've been hearing about how soccer is the "next big thing" in sports since the Nixon Administration.

As Calgacus correctly points out, the immigrant ideal in the period you suggest was one of assimilation. This is the exact opposite of the current thinking where immigrants fully expect to remain Fill-In-The-Blanks in their new nation despite having left Fill-In-The-Blank. Both my grandfathers emigrated from soccer playing countries, actually played in semi-pro leagues in the first decades of the 20th Century, and their children never picked up the game because it wasn't American.

Immigrants in the 1800s became Americans and not hypenated Americans. In fact, immigrants were so keen to become Americans they were often more Americans than Americans. Americans didn't play soccer much, there were too many other sports choices and none of the "Good = Gentlemen Amateur Athletes / Bad = Hoi Polloi Professional Athletes" period snobbery of Britain in particular and Europe in general.

Today in the US, soccer is a game for children, recent immigrants, and a few fanatics. No one else really cares about it and most children "outgrow" it once they're old enough to begin playing "real" sports like football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.


Bill

 

[Thande]

I wonder if football teams might be organised on a state basis for American tournaments, as well as the more common town-based ones... (closer to how the home nations compete separately).

 

[Calgacus]

Tom,

I don't think it's possible in the slightest and I've been hearing about how soccer is the "next big thing" in sports since the Nixon Administration.

As Calgacus correctly points out, the immigrant ideal in the period you suggest was one of assimilation. This is the exact opposite of the current thinking where immigrants fully expect to remain Fill-In-The-Blanks in their new nation despite having left Fill-In-The-Blank. Both my grandfathers emigrated from soccer playing countries, actually played in semi-pro leagues in the first decades of the 20th Century, and their children never picked up the game because it wasn't American.

Immigrants in the 1800s became Americans and not hypenated Americans. In fact, immigrants were so keen to become Americans they were often more Americans than Americans. Americans didn't play soccer much, there were too many other sports choices and none of the "Good = Gentlemen Amateur Athletes / Bad = Hoi Polloi Professional Athletes" period snobbery of Britain in particular and Europe in general.

Today in the US, soccer is a game for children, recent immigrants, and a few fanatics. No one else really cares about it and most children "outgrow" it once they're old enough to begin playing "real" sports like football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.


Bill

Firstly, football is gaining ground in America. Slowly, and it'll never be on the same level as baseball or US football, but it will probably one day be on the same level as ice hockey at least.

Secondly, the point about assimilation is reason for celebration, not mourning. The reason the earlier generations of immigrants had to fit in was that the level of racism and political opposition they faced was huge. Things aren't as bad now, so there is less reason to assimilate as fully as say the Poles or Irish. Nonetheless, as far as I can see, the most recent immigrants have some of the same desire to be American, or at least their children do.

 

[Tom_NUFC]

Firstly, football is gaining ground in America. Slowly, and it'll never be on the same level as baseball or US football, but it will probably one day be on the same level as ice hockey at least.

It's certainly more successful than any of the American sports are over here.

The thing about football being seen as a kids game, which they outgrow is pretty much how Baseball's close-relation (as Baseball isn't really played much at all) Rounders is viewed. It's seen as a Primary School game. I can't remember playing it past the age of 10.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

Bill.

I'm pretty much aware of a lot of what you've said. They are good, relevant points in OTL.
But I'm talking about at the very origins of the standardised codes of football.

In the late 1860s and early 1870s, a lot of the top colleges with the exception of Harvard (Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Columbia) did meet, did agree, did form an Inter-Collegiate association in which they agreed to play football by Association rules. That happened, and the question I'm posing is what if Harvard hadn't persuaded the others change - at a time BEFORE anti-Football prejudices in the US occurred.

It's also worth mentioning that in OTL, Football was actually quite successful in the US, during the period prior to WWI and even into the 1930s in certain parts of the USA, despite the American code. Granted, not as succesful as American Football or Baseball, but popular nonetheless, generating crowds of 30,000-40,000 in areas of NYC, in Chicago, in Southern Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in Eastern Pennsylvania and in St Louis.

Have a read of a book called 'Soccer in a Football World' by David Wangerin (an American). It's interesting stuff and I was suprised at the depth of history the sport actually has in the USA.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's also worth mentioning that in OTL, Football was actually quite successful in the US, during the period prior to WWI and even into the 1930s in certain parts of the USA, despite the American code. Granted, not as succesful as American Football or Baseball, but popular nonetheless, generating crowds of 30,000-40,000 in areas of NYC, in Chicago, in Southern Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in Eastern Pennsylvania and in St Louis.

Have a read of a book called 'Soccer in a Football World' by David Wangerin (an American). It's interesting stuff and I was suprised at the depth of history the sport actually has in the USA.

Actually, before WWII the US had a very good competitive level. The US national team made it to semifinals in Uruguay'30.

 

[Calgacus]

Actually, before WWII the US had a very good competitive level. The US national team made it to semifinals in Uruguay'30.

Interestingly, it was at just that time that baseball had a brief surge of popularity over here. It looked like it was going to be a big sport in England, but WW2 scuppered that. Now there's a TL for you!

 

[Tom_NUFC]

Actually, before WWII the US had a very good competitive level. The US national team made it to semifinals in Uruguay'30.

True. To be fair though, if you look at that first tournament, not many of the top European teams went over. It wasn't the most competative tournament, the US only played 3 games in the whole tournament. They beat both Belgium and Paraguay 3-0, comfortable wins, but not the hardest opposition. When they came up against real opposition in the semi final, Argentina tore them apart 6-1. Nevertheless, I don't think they were expected to make the semis.

Interestingly, it was at just that time that baseball had a brief surge of popularity over here. It looked like it was going to be a big sport in England, but WW2 scuppered that. Now there's a TL for you!

Actually, that's true. Hence Derby County's old ground, the Baseball Ground.

 

[Calgacus]

True. To be fair though, if you look at that first tournament, not many of the top European teams went over. It wasn't the most competative tournament, the US only played 3 games in the whole tournament. They beat both Belgium and Paraguay 3-0, comfortable wins, but not the hardest opposition. When they came up against real opposition in the semi final, Argentina tore them apart 6-1. Nevertheless, I don't think they were expected to make the semis.


Actually, that's true. Hence Derby County's old ground, the Baseball Ground.

I know it's true - that's why I said it.

I think the pundit on C5s baseball coverage - Josh Chetwynd - has written a book on it.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Firstly, football is gaining ground in America. Slowly, and it'll never be on the same level as baseball or US football, but it will probably one day be on the same level as ice hockey at least.

Calgacus,

I actually live in America and the view from here - as opposed to the view from Glasgow - is slightly different. (Also, in the part of the country I live in, hockey is nearly a religion. Children play in competitive leagues from 5 on, rink time for schools is rationed, teams routinely practice at 4am, and boys and girls hockey is avidly followed through the collegiate level. Soccer can never attain that level of popularity.)

Soccer has been "slowly gaining ground" for most of my life. I can remember being told that for the first time forty years ago and can see that no real ground has been gained. Like Brazi laways being the "nation of the future", soccer will always be the "sport of the future" in the US and the future will never arrive.

I've seen at least three male professional leagues, two of which are defunct. The other gets no press whatsoever. The team closest to me has apparently gone to the finals 2 or 3 times in the last few years and almost no one cares at all. A female pro league folded it's tents last year and no one cared. Many didn't even know it existed. The loss of the US women's team in the recent World Cup only got press because of a player's strong remarks about her apparently idiotic coach and whoever eventually won the women's Cup is unknown to me - a fellow who watches ESPN during breakfast and supper. I've seen world class players trumpeted with every trick Madison Avenue can devise and, once again, nothing come of it. There's been Pele, some young man from West Africa, Beckham, and others. No one cares because we have other things to watch.

And soccer did not and will not develop in the US, despite its long history here, for two primary reasons:

- In the 1800s, it was not viewed as an American game and was thus mostly ignored for chauvanistic reasons.

- After the 1800s, America was rich enough to have many sporting options and soccer could not "crack in".

Soccer is also an "acquired taste" on TV and - quite frankly - is boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in it since childhood. To be fair, all US sports are also boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in them since childhood.

Secondly, the point about assimilation is reason for celebration, not mourning. The reason the earlier generations of immigrants had to fit in was that the level of racism and political opposition they faced was huge.

I completely agree there.

Things aren't as bad now, so there is less reason to assimilate as fully as say the Poles or Irish.

I cannot agree there. You don't immigrate to Britain and the US to remain Pakistani or Mexican. If you want the benefits of living in those nations, you best assimilate into the culture that created those benefits. Western Civilization is more than a relatively big paycheck. There are shared ideas, ideals, and behaviors too. If you want to continue acting like you did in the Third World country you came from and feel your children to act that same way too, please stay home.

Nonetheless, as far as I can see, the most recent immigrants have some of the same desire to be American, or at least their children do.

Again, the view in America is different than the view from Scotland.


Bill

 

[Calgacus]

Calgacus,

I actually live in America and the view from here - as opposed to the view from Glasgow - is slightly different. (Also, in the part of the country I live in, hockey is nearly a religion. Children play in competitive leagues from 5 on, rink time for schools is rationed, teams routinely practice at 4am, and boys and girls hockey is avidly followed through the collegiate level. Soccer can never attain that level of popularity.)

Soccer has been "slowly gaining ground" for most of my life. I can remember being told that for the first time forty years ago and can see that no real ground has been gained. Like Brazi laways being the "nation of the future", soccer will always be the "sport of the future" in the US and the future will never arrive.

I've seen at least three male professional leagues, two of which are defunct. The other gets no press whatsoever. The team closest to me has apparently gone to the finals 2 or 3 times in the last few years and almost no one cares at all. A female pro league folded it's tents last year and no one cared. Many didn't even know it existed. The loss of the US women's team in the recent World Cup only got press because of a player's strong remarks about her apparently idiotic coach and whoever eventually won the women's Cup is unknown to me - a fellow who watches ESPN during breakfast and supper. I've seen world class players trumpeted with every trick Madison Avenue can devise and, once again, nothing come of it. There's been Pele, some young man from West Africa, Beckham, and others. No one cares because we have other things to watch.

And soccer did not and will not develop in the US, despite its long history here, for two primary reasons:

- In the 1800s, it was not viewed as an American game and was thus mostly ignored for chauvanistic reasons.

- After the 1800s, America was rich enough to have many sporting options and soccer could not "crack in".

Soccer is also an "acquired taste" on TV and - quite frankly - is boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in it since childhood. To be fair, all US sports are also boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in them since childhood.



I completely agree there.



I cannot agree there. You don't immigrate to Britain and the US to remain Pakistani or Mexican. If you want the benefits of living in those nations, you best assimilate into the culture that created those benefits. Western Civilization is more than a relatively big paycheck. There are shared ideas, ideals, and behaviors too. If you want to continue acting like you did in the Third World country you came from and feel your children to act that same way too, please stay home.



Again, the view in America is different than the view from Scotland.


Bill

Way to patronise, Bill. I have spent quite a while in America, not to mention my wife and all my in-laws being American. I know a fair amount about it. The differences in our views I suspect have different reasons than our birthplaces.

Firstly, I generally agree with most of your points about football, with one exception - the previous attempts at football leagues were fly-by-night affairs that concentrated more on big name players than on the basics. The MLS by contrast has modest aims, and for the most part has been achieving those aims. The clubs are mostly stable and pull loyal, if still small, crowds. There is a very good draft system in place, and lots of young talent. It's never going to compete with US football and baseball, but it doesn't really have to. As you pointed out, the US market has plenty of sports options, and soccer need only be one of many. I'd say it is already well on the way, and lack of media attention is more a matter of long-standing bias in the sporting community. You say "no-one cares because we have other things to watch". If that is true, then why do hockey and basketball not suffer because people have baseball to watch? There are already four major sports in the US - a fifth will not make much of a difference.

As for the immigration issue, you'd really have to provide me with concrete evidence that large numbers of immigrants are indeed "continuing acting like they did in the Third World country they came from", because otherwise it just sounds like the kind of nativist prejudice that reared its head in the 1920s and 1860s. The same kind of rhetoric was used then as well, and with the same kind of justification, yet I don't see anyone complaining that Ted Kennedy and Rudy Giuliani are un-American.....

 

[Tom Veil]

Soccer is also an "acquired taste" on TV and - quite frankly - is boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in it since childhood. To be fair, all US sports are also boring as sh*t to someone who hasn't been steeped in them since childhood.

Very true. I remember going to a baseball game in Germany and trying to explain the game to a German who was sitting near me. I kept thinking, "hey! The rules of baseball make no sense!" I could have taught the guy how to hit or field, but as a spectator, the learning curve is too steep. And that's how I feel when confronted by soccer. I will gladly kick a ball around with friends. But if you ask me to sit still and watch other people play while following the rules obsessively, on this immense, featureless field -- well, I'll get confused and bored, even though I'm sure that some German sitting near me in the stands would be having a good time.

 

[Tom Veil]

There are already four major sports in the US - a fifth will not make much of a difference.

Which, if you think about it, is a good reason why soccer will never amount to anything. Our #4 sport, hockey, struggles to even get airtime anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line. (Unless you are from south of the Mason-Dixon line, in which case you'd disagree with me and say that NASCAR is the #4 sport, and soccer will have to top that before it can amount to anything.)

 

[Calgacus]

Very true. I remember going to a baseball game in Germany and trying to explain the game to a German who was sitting near me. I kept thinking, "hey! The rules of baseball make no sense!" I could have taught the guy how to hit or field, but as a spectator, the learning curve is too steep. And that's how I feel when confronted by soccer. I will gladly kick a ball around with friends. But if you ask me to sit still and watch other people play while following the rules obsessively, on this immense, featureless field -- well, I'll get confused and bored, even though I'm sure that some German sitting near me in the stands would be having a good time.

Well that's kind of what I was getting at in the NFL thread. It requires effort to enjoy most sports, like acquiring a taste for a certain foodstuff. Most of us just don't have the time or inclination. I have recently developed a keen interest in baseball, to add to my football interest (pretty much hardwired into me), but it's not been easy to work it out.