I think this sums it up quite nicely.
"Why Soccer Sucks
Soccer participants are walking advertisements.
France is successful at participating at soccer. That should say something, especially to the British.
The "World" Cup is not the a World's Cup, but a competition among 32 countries, disproportionately allotted to European countries.
Soccer hooligans.
Soccer is boring. Soccer is absurdly slow. I've had soccer apologists say with false pride how the average soccer participant "runs" 4 miles in a game. Newsflash: that means they are jogging less than 3 miles per hour. Translation: they are mostly standing around. BORING.
Soccer participants act like they've been shot. Meanwhile, real athletes like Donovan McNabb or Bobby Baun play on broken legs.
Soccer is too simple an activity.
Penalty kicks. You are determining a winner by a random event that has no relevance to the rest of the game. It would be as stupid as replacing extra innings with batting practice.
Fruity penalty cards. How stupid is it to flash up some card to indicate the severity of a penalty? Richard Simmons was inspired to use them in his diet system. Are all penalties the same? Again, the inability to use the upper torso hampers soccer participants. Use hand signals, you troglodytes.
Psychotic fans. The South Korean loser who set himself on fire is one example. The mental stability of the murderer who killed that one player because he sucked (free clue: all soccer participants suck) is another.
Ties: 55% of games are ties. Ties suck.
Why not use your hands? Or your brain?
Soccer participants do not bathe.
Soccer hairdos.
Pompous pseudo-intellectual Europeans who become soccer fans in order to convince the populace of their link to the common man.
Soccer participants with one name. I can understand why your parents would disown any soccer participant, but they should take at least any last name.
Soccer hilites concentrate on what almost happens. When ESPN has the poor sense to show soccer hilites, they show missed shots, missed passes, etc. Any real sport shows things that actually contribute to the result. Soccer participants do not care about the result.
Soccer fans justify the activity based entirely on its popularity. Not only are the reasons why soccer is popular an argument against soccer, but it really shows how pathetic said activity is when that is the only argument soccer fans come up with.
The correct term for 0 is zero, not nil. Take a math class.
Buy a freaking cup.
Soccer is not objective. There is no play clock. The game doesn't end after the clock has run down. This adds bias, subjectivism and appeals to lower intellects, and it destroys the drama from last second victories. Contrast such clumsy timekeeping (shame on the Swiss, who should know better) and the lack of any discernable strategy with the strategic precision of the two-minute drill in football.
Soccer is not objective, part two. The lack of offensive chances leads to ties, which, as we know, suck. Soccer's "solution?" Let's randomize the result (in those cases where a tie suddenly becomes an affront, the "World" Cup) by having penalty kicks.
Soccer participants on the same team have different jerseys. The obviously higher intelligence of hockey (goaltender) or football (offensive linemen) fans and referees is evident, since we don't need a different uniform to indicate a different privilege in the rule book.
Soccer is Third World inexpensive. Ordinarily, this would not be a problem. Most people don't consider buying hockey or football equipment expensive in civilized countries, but in the context of the rest of the world, it is expensive. On the other hand, soccer is dirt cheap - and by dirt cheap, I mean slum kids in Brazil rolling up balls of dirt to kick around.
Soccer apologists say the reason it is not popular in the US is because it wasn't invented in the US. First, soccer originated from the North American game called pasuckuakohowog several hundred years before the British played something resembling it. Second, basketball was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US. Third, football was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US.
Soccer apologists say the reason it is not popular in the US is because the US is not any good at that activity. The US soccer team won the World Cup in 1991 and 1999. Better find another reason.
Soccer apologists say soccer is an athletic activity. Using the Olympics as a barometer, it is pretty obvious that those countries that lack athletic prowess (Britain, France) are successful at soccer. Interesting to note, despite the inclusion of activities like soccer and walking in the Olympics (and the wrongful exclusion of football and rodeo), how those countries where soccer is not popular outperform those countries where soccer is popular athletically.
Soccer apologists steal terms from real sports. Hint: a pitch is something an option QB does. A draw is a running play designed to counter a strong pass rush. Football is a real sport that involves athletes in pads and helmets, not sissies playing kickball.
Soccer has no honor. There are codes of behavior in sports like hockey, baseball, football and basketball. There is no code of behavior in the activity of soccer: the penis biting should make this fairly obvious.
Soccer markets to Nazis - even today. Umbro markets Zyklon, a type of shoe, to soccer participants. Zyklon was the name of the gas used to kill Jews in WWII.
Soccer uses witch doctors. The same simplistic mentality that avails itself to soccer avails itself to primal mysticism.
Soccer idiots overexaggerate everything. Yeah, soccer deserves a Nobel Prize. Better load up on the security for that award presentation, because soccer deserves it less than terrorists like Arafat. Yeah, a soccer game is a wondrous event in your nation's history. Granted, these nations still have to master indoor plumbing, but please - stop the hallucinogenics, now.
Soccer fans actually set themselves on fire. That's a pretty good barometer judging the mentality of soccer fans.
Soccer cheering has no point. Football fans successfully cause opposing teams' offenses to call timeouts, use up the play clock, screw up audibles or cause procedure penalties. Ask Burt Hooton whether baseball fans affect an opponent's performance. Soccer? They sing songs - which all sound the same - regardless of outcome. It doesn't celebrate performance. It doesn't serve to intimidate. It has no purpose.
Soccer counts time up. Soccer games count the time that has elapsed, rather than the time remaining. This is stupid for a number of reasons. First, soccer games don't refer to time anyway, so why even keep it? Second, why the concern on the past? The score already reflects all important information of what has already happened in the game. In soccer, this is most likely irrelevant anyway, since the score is most likely 0-0, er, nil, nil. The focus should be on the result - which depends on the future. Thus, time should count down. Can you imagine NASA counting up (from, say, when JFK made his speech about landing on the moon in a decade)? How stupid would that be?"
