Perspective Article: Why do Americans care only about football, baseball and bball?

[Mr Epee]

I came across this short, insightful, article a few days ago, and thought a few folks here might enjoy reading it.

The author, Michael Weinreb, is a NYC based, award winning, freelance sports journalist. His recent book, GAME OF KINGS: A Year Among the Oddballs and Geniuses Who Make Up America’s Top High School Chess Team, was an Amazon.com Editors' Pick for top-10 non-fiction books of 2007.

Increasing the popularity (and increasing exposure) of fencing is a common topic on this forum. However, this is a very complex issue, and it's important to understand the obstacles to gaining traction/momentum.

These obstacles are not unique to our sport. The author makes the case that these are deep cultural issues, and momentum appears to be gathering in the opposite direction.

Why do Americans care only about football, baseball, and basketball?

Enjoy.

Thoughts? Discussion?

[FusionWhite]

Thats a dumb question... Americans dont give a crap about baseball.

[Jason]

I don't buy it. The author didn't even know that the Stanley Cup finals were taking place? That's pretty easy information to find (it's on the front page of ESPN.com--the same site he wrote the article for). And, come on, he's never heard of handball? Unless the only place he's looking for his sports info is his local news broadcast, he's just retarded.

While coverage of "oddball" sports may not be growing on the major TV networks (although, really, who watches TV networks for news?), I don't see anything to suggest that such sports are doomed to irrelevance. US news coverage--sports related or not--is generally extremely poor (he mentions discovering CNN International, which I would definitely agree is far better than the domestic brand--though still far from ideal), but it does not mean that we're a nation doomed to ignorance. Information can be found, and news media trends are always changing.

He mentions MMA, NASCAR, and soccer as exceptions--and, in so doing, disproves his own argument. If media coverage of those three sports can grow, then the status quo is not ossified.

Fencing's exposure has certainly grown (if only by inches) and, in spite of the fact that the USFA doesn't now anything about marketing, it may continue to do so. Now, if anyone in the USFA actually knew something about marketing....

[SJCFU#2]

Allen Evans posed an interesting question when this same article was mentioned in the Fencing Evolution Prediction thread (post #63) - how did the current situations come to be?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

Allen Evans posed an interesting question when this same article was mentioned in the Fencing Evolution Prediction thread (post #63) - how did the current situations come to be?

Credit goes to Dev who was the first to reference this article.
I didn't follow that discussion.

Good man that Dev. He is to be congratulated for raising the bar.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by FusionWhite

Thats a dumb question... Americans dont give a crap about baseball.

You obviously haven't been to New York... ever.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't buy it. The author didn't even know that the Stanley Cup finals were taking place? That's pretty easy information to find (it's on the front page of ESPN.com--the same site he wrote the article for). And, come on, he's never heard of handball? Unless the only place he's looking for his sports info is his local news broadcast, he's just retarded.

You and I both have spent a good deal of time (read:years) living in Europe. Honestly, how familiar were you with team handball prior to your experiences in Poland? I confess that prior to moving to Hungary, my exposure to handball was limited to a conversation with a German exchange student.

He mentions MMA, NASCAR, and soccer as exceptions--and, in so doing, disproves his own argument. If media coverage of those three sports can grow, then the status quo is not ossified.

It could be argued that MMA is simply a well packaged product the contents of which were already well established in popular culture and lore. Isn't it merely a product extension of boxing, and the landslide of martial arts movies? Soccer is the world sport. NASCAR has always had a highly intense regional following.

Fencing's exposure has certainly grown (if only by inches) and, in spite of the fact that the USFA doesn't now anything about marketing, it may continue to do so. Now, if anyone in the USFA actually knew something about marketing....

Agreed. Needless to say, I have many thoughts on this subject, and am currently searching for an article which I hope to share shortly... that demonstrates the internet's strengths in satisfying an increasingly divergent set of consumer tastes and interests.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Agreed. Needless to say, I have many thoughts on this subject, and am currently searching for an article which I hope to share shortly... that demonstrates the internet's strengths in satisfying an increasingly divergent set of consumer tastes and interests.

Good thought... Check out Chris Anderson's book The Long Tail if you have not already.

R-

[Dev]

Aw, shucks.

Anyway--the 24-hour, updated-once-every-five-minutes information cycle might have something to do with this. I think that baseball, football, and basketball benefit from having a continuous season and constant input to dissect. Remember how huge boxing and tennis seemed to be in the 80s and 90s (they heyday of Mike Tyson and the McEnroe/Sampras/Agassi era)? But there's a catch: next to the aforementioned "big three", events in boxing and tennis happen comparatively infrequently, and perhaps not frequently enough to feed the new news cycle.

The "people only care about the Grand Slams" or "boxing needs a big fight to revitalize itself" arguments really only started happening recently, when their grand but relatively rare events started to be out-volumed in the minute-by-minute media cycle by season-based sports that can provide web sites and blogs with constant streams of input. Baseball and basketball are actually better for this as they play every day; it's no wonder all the extraneous fluff football coverage on ESPN (to say nothing of the NFL network) just feels flat-out ridiculous.

Even if it weren't completely obscure by American standards, fencing would fall into this latter category; there aren't World Cups every day or even every weekend. It would then face the same obstacle of the other sports in America that (particularly ESPN) columnists are insisting have fallen into irrelevance. Which is a shame, because these sports contain some fine athletes, citizens, and stories; I would much rather read about Roger Federer and Justine Henin and Joe Calagahze then Pac-Man Jones' latest arrest record.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by piste off

Good thought... Check out Chris Anderson's book The Long Tail if you have not already.

R-

THAT'S THE ONE.... Genius.

I was specifically thinking of this interview that he did with NPR in March, 2005.

It's neither fencing or sport related, but the same marketing concepts can be applied.

Also, the original Wired article that inspired the book can be found here. It's pretty long, but worth the read...

[chefencer]

I think the article's premise is essentially correct although what I read as an attempt at humor comes across reducing the writer's credibility to others. I think it's the economics that are driving this trend. I fully expect mainstream everything (food, sports, music, literature) to become more homogenized and narrower but opportunities for 'niche' markets to increase as things 'democratize'. The profusion of cable channels has allowed me to be able to watch All the games for Euro '08 if I so choose and I gotta think that's a cool thing. Three networks and The Wide World of Sports wasn't the Golden Age for fencing or soccer coverage. Let the big boys have the Big 3 Sports. From my recent experience of having to listen to Kurt Gowdie in 1977 try to announce Pele's last game for the Cosmos, I'd rather get my particular info from people who actually know and care about my sports.

The Revolution will be Televised, but it'll be on WCSN...

To actually address the OP: The corollary is that it isn't that Americans only care about the big 3, that's just what makes the most economic sense for Big Media.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

It's neither fencing or sport related, but the same marketing concepts apply.

I think you are correct. The concept is having a big impact in the marketing space.

And who knows? Sometimes the niches produce a mass winner. Who wants to step forward and be fencing's version of Kimbo?

Eh... not so fast there, Mighty Maccabee!

R-

[counterattack]

1) The big sports are the ones that, on average, are the most marketable/followable long term. Individual sports are harder. Your guy is hurt, not in that tourney, or retires you have to build a new loyalty. You can't pass down a loyalty from parent to child, unlike team sports.

2) There is a lot of peripheral sports awareness in the U.S., but each person has different sports on their radar, and aren't spending money on the peripherals unless they are participating.

[Greybeard]

basketball paid for my undergraduate degree. Are there fencing full rides? I played Big 10 ball in the 70's.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by FusionWhite

Thats a dumb question... Americans dont give a crap about baseball.

Clearly you've never lived in the northeast...

-m

[Hauptman]

I think you're right on here, and I've stated it here myself:

Team competition is an easy opening to a large group of sports fans. They are the fans that love to cheer for the home team regardless of the sport. If we were to emphasize more team competitions in fencing we would instantly bring in a large group of fans and supporters (if that's what you want).

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

If we were to emphasize more team competitions in fencing we would instantly bring in a large group of fans and supporters.

In my world everyone is a pony and they eat rainbows and poop butterflies.

R-

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I came across this short, insightful, article a few days ago, and thought a few folks here might enjoy reading it.

The author, Michael Weinreb, is a NYC based, award winning, freelance sports journalist. His recent book, GAME OF KINGS: A Year Among the Oddballs and Geniuses Who Make Up America’s Top High School Chess Team, was an Amazon.com Editors' Pick for top-10 non-fiction books of 2007.

Increasing the popularity (and increasing exposure) of fencing is a common topic on this forum. However, this is a very complex issue, and it's important to understand the obstacles to gaining traction/momentum.

These obstacles are not unique to our sport. The author makes the case that these are deep cultural issues, and momentum appears to be gathering in the opposite direction.

Enjoy.

Thoughts? Discussion?

You are, of course, right that this is a complex issue.
My question is a basic one; What does the fencing community want?

Do we want a lot of fencers? Or do we just want to watch fencing on TV?
I believe that these are two very different things.

Fencing is already in the mainstream American mind-as sword fighting. So what? How many fencers started fencing because they wanted to play with swords? Go all out and market fencing that way. We'll get even greater numbers than in the past 10 years.

Ah! But what do we do with increased numbers? We don't have any wide spread coaching programs turning out people to teach the new fencers. We don't have new tournament programs for these new people to compete in.

I really think that the fencing community in the USA doesn't want to be popular and increase in size.

I think fencers want mainstream America to see (and say) that they are in a real sport and not just 'playing with swords'

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I think you're right on here, and I've stated it here myself:

Team competition is an easy opening to a large group of sports fans. They are the fans that love to cheer for the home team regardless of the sport. If we were to emphasize mor