Opinionista
Brooks Spector
Soccer Version 2.0: new-generation rules for new times

Soccer is boring. There, we’ve said it. But we do so because we’ve had a vision of how to take “the beautiful game” beyond mere beauty and into the fantastical realm of drop-dead gorgeous - as sexy, sassy and action-packed as 90-minutes of Charlie’s Angels-versus-Lara Croft.

I woke up from a nap during the US vs Australia friendly soccer match on the weekend - by the way what was the final score after 90 minutes of running back and forth? – with a sudden understanding of what was wrong with this so-called “beautiful game”.  And in a way similar to how the poem “Kubla Khan” came to Samuel Taylor Coleridge in a dream, how to fix soccer came to me while I slept. (Yes, I do know that, after an hour and a half of much fruitless running, the Americans beat the Aussies 3-1. Yawn.)

Okay, okay, it’s “the beautiful game” for 2 billion people, but that’s only because they don’t know any better. They haven’t figured out yet that it’s a boring game - and they don’t know how much better it would be if it were fixed properly in the first place.

Soccer-football’s quadrennial tournament gets people in a whole bunch of countries all worked up, true, but most of them come from European nations like Moravia, Slovakia, Graustark, Schleswig-Holstein or Claustrophobia; African countries like Monomotapa, Kleptocracia and Backofbeyondia; and perennial world powers like El Dorado, Paraguay, the former Danish West Indies and Surinam. Okay, okay, they play soccer in Russia too, but that’s probably an aberration left over from Soviet dreams of world domination and making the biggest tanks, tractors and rockets.

It is true that soccer has found something of an audience – even a following – in the US and that about 12,000 people are coming from America for this party here in South Africa (although we’ll bet many of these people are really Brazilian or Graustarkian passport holders who live and work in the US). Yes, over the past two generations, soccer has become a significant part of American life, but it has been as exercise for suburban children in a well-supervised way to get them out of the house and into the sun, rather than as a secular religion as might be the case in Germany or England. The very name of the “soccer moms”, speaks to protective suburban households worrying about the future, insisting on the need for safe sports and exercise and keeping all those bad things out there at bay. American society simply has no equivalent to those “soccer lout” tribes so common and infamous throughout Europe. Certainly not among those nice middle-class soccer moms and dads.

But let’s be totally honest for a moment - money is the real measure of sports success today. While the payment for this year’s TV broadcast rights in America for the 2010 Fifa championship - at more than R3.1 billion - is an order of magnitude over what it was for the previous tournament, the real comparison has to be with the payment for broadcast rights for the National Football League season and the US Superbowl, or with professional baseball and the World Series, or with professional basketball and university basketball. With these there is no comparison.

In fact, in spite of this bigger payment for TV rights to broadcast the soccer tournament in the US, soccer still has basically missed out on the two really big, really lucrative markets that virtually rain down money for advertising, TV rights, tie-in merchandising and everything else that goes with it – in the US and China. The dynamics are a bit different between the two. The US has a much higher per capita income, true, but China has the numbers - a way to connect with a whole new market of a billion-and-a-half people.

A few years back, the media stumbled on the worldwide sports star phenomena – the universal sports hero – Michael Jordan, then, later, Tiger Woods. Wherever one went in the world, in fancy airport stores, anywhere, or on the backs of street kids in the worst slums in the world, people knew the name Michael Jordan. They wanted to wear a T-shirt with his name on it and they desperately wanted his special brand of sports shoes.

Jordan, probably more than anybody else, ever, made basketball the coolest sport on the globe. He was absolutely American, yet he became the global big guy. Basketball is now big in Europe, Latin America and China. And then, all of a sudden, along came China’s own phenom, Yao Ming, with a fan base of more than a billion people, making China a basketball-mad nation in the process.

Basketball, at its most fundamental, is a street game that just needs a ball, some flat space, two poles and two metal hoops. It can be played almost anywhere - in war zones, ghetto streets and Ivy League universities. They probably even play it at Antarctic research stations.

It used to be a fairly deliberately paced game of patterns, set-up shots and intricate defensive formations that wasn’t all that different from the game James Naismith invented during a snowy New England winter in 1891, using a couple of peach baskets nailed to the walls of a university gymnasium. Then the people in charge of the professional and university versions of the sport added two key changes – the 24-second shot clock for the pros (and 35-second clock for university games) and the three-point shot from beyond an arc centred on the basket and passing through the foul line. Basketball’s all-time great, Bob Cousy, once said, “I think the shot clock saved the NBA.” And he’s probably right.

The challenge for soccer is to tap into the risk/reward of the 3-point shot and the fast pace of the shot clock and make them work for soccer so the game can truly grab the emotions of all those would-be American and Chinese fans and make them fall in love with that beautiful game. And - make the sponsorship, advertising and broadcasting rights wonga rain down on the sport, in the process. So, in the interest of improving something that is basically 22 guys running around for 90 minutes on a big grassy field, herewith are The Daily Maverick’s four new rules to create – a little drum roll now, please – Football 2.0.

#1. All goals scored from any place between the penalty line and the actual goal net are worth one point.

#2. All goals scored from any place between the penalty line and the mid-field line, by contrast, are worth three points.

#3. All goals scored from beyond the mid-field line are worth five points.

#4. A shot clock will count down from one minute at the beginning of each possession and a team must attempt to score before the shot clock reaches zero. If no goal is attempted, ball possession turns over to the other team and the shot clock restarts at a minute.

The benefits are obvious. The game develops a more fluid, run-and-gun, run-and-shoot style akin to basketball as the score runs up minute by minute. Classy combinations become much more important than individual flashiness and the game takes on the essential character of sport that is all about the tight teamwork that leads to scoring and winning.

This also separates so-so players from true stars who can score and win, locating players on a stretched out standard deviation curve by their scoring. The true greats of the game will become instantly obvious by virtue of their awesome scoring prowess vis-à-vis other players. Over a season, the cumulative total of goals scored by a player will more effectively measure greatness in the game. Players who can deliver scores, game after game, will command much higher salaries than also-rans. Moreover, the resulting deluge of statistics will allow followers to compare and contrast players just as fans now do with statistics in baseball, basketball, grid-iron, tennis and golf. These new scoring stats will give fans so much more to talk about in the off-season - and some tangible way to measure greatness.

Thus our challenge to Fifa is to set up a slate of games using these new rules for the next World Cup – or try this in a European league for a year. Let’s see what the fans want – really exciting high-scoring games, or the same old 90 minutes of “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

(Editor’s note: Spector can’t really be blamed for this astonishing display of fantasy. He grew up in the US and fell in love with the rhythms of baseball.)

More by Brooks Spector




You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please login or sign up.
As a rugby watcher I have sympathy for your views. My suggestion to the present game is that they have the penalty shoot out before the game. This would incentivise the players to GET ON WITH IT! There seems to be no real need to get goals. It is frustrating to watch unending hours of prancing about and then have it decided by lucky shots.
Bah. Trust an American to try and turn every game into some weird mix of basketball and that other thing, the one like rugby but for sissies. It's not our fault your people have the attention span of a common housefly.
Oh Phillip: bah, humbug! If you love watching aimless running so much, go watch a marathon. If you love scoring and play combinations, join my cause to fix soccer before it's too late. And you of all people - I know you are a secret rugby fan - and rugby is all about scoring, right?
....and one other thing, soccer football doesn't exactly require higher math to count the scoring...what's the usual match final score? 1-0 or 2-1? and a blow-out is 3 or more goals over an hour and a half?
Why are Pele, George Best, Maradonna et al. considered so great? They scored lots of goals, they were spectacular players but also scored (like Michael Jordan). ALL the replays you see are about scoring. Goals are what people want to see, not just dribbling and dithering. Rugby, Cricket etc all modified their rules to enhance scoring and speed up the games. Perhaps soccer should as well. Certainly, playing not to lose should be penalised in some way.
I'd honestly rather watch five day cricket than soccer
Brooks, football (or soccer, since you're a yank), is a game of subtlety. If you only watch the ball, you miss most of the game. Football is about speed, movement off the ball, awareness of space, the formation and discipline of the team, tactical awareness - the ability of one team to read the other, negate its strengths and exploit its weaknesses, and of course the individual ball skills to apply the appropriate tactics. There is action there... if you know where to look. To paraphrase, you can take an American to water but you can't make him drink - you have to add Kool-Aid first ;-)
... sorry, Kool-Aid (TM) - please don't sue me!
Boring article. No, really.
Why is it that the so called 'Beautiful Game' with so much emphasis placed on fair-play (at least amongst players) has one of the highest rates of spectator violence associated with any sport.

If we analysed this statistically I would hazard a guess that one could draw an inverse relationship graph (comparing final score versus spectator violence) of any sport in the world that would show:
LESS SCORE = MORE VIOLENCE

I would also hazard guess that if we compared violence on the pitch (amongst the players eg Rugby & Ice hockey) versus violence in stands you would find:
FIGHTING ON THE PITCH = NO FIGHTING IN THE CROWD

Thus the conclusions are easy to draw:

We can cut down on spectator frustration (and hence violence) by either:
1: INCREASE THE SCORING POTENTIAL OF THE GAME. (I'm with you Spector!)

OR

2: ALLOW THE PLAYERS TO BLIKSEM EACH OTHER ON OUR BEHALF

Either way it will be more entertaining ;-)
thank you Gary for your endorsement - althuogh I'm not sure it would be a good idea if players are allowed to bring lethal weapons onto the field! I'm glad you make explicit the question of sports violence - in the stands vs. on the field. American football has little fan violence associated with it, although field violence is rather vivid, per the film 'Any Given Sunday'. A caveat, however. Psychologists, school officials and sports administrators are consistently concerned in the US about violence at school matches - but the worry is that the violence is primarily parents fighting with each other from the groups of supporters of the respective schools at the game.
To Matt H.: does this imply that the perfect game (from the teams' perspectives if not the fans') is a 0 - 0 tie? To Greg: maybe the column reflects something of the nature of the subject? Perhaps we need to remember that all sports reflect their times and sports do change - the rules change, the equipment changes, the fans' expectations change. Sports administrators need to keep all these dynamics in mind as they either defend to the death the old ways or adapt to more modern expectations.
Is that a serious question? The object is to win... :-/ <- puzzled expression
Yes of course the object of any sports match is to win, but all this focus on the dazzling footwork and brilliant tactics and passing back and forth (rather than lots of scoring that gives one team a victory) seems to imply that the perfect game would be one in which the two sides were so well balanced that they fought to a draw after an hour and a half.

By contrast, with football 2.0, the likelihood of a draw is much harder to expect - scoring would come fast and furious and the fans would be pulled into the action, urging their respective teams to take that 5 point shot if the game was still close a minute before the end...and to win!
"...seems to imply that the perfect game would be one in which the two sides were so well balanced that they fought to a draw after an hour and a half."

Um, no... except that the match you describe can be extremely entertaining. The point is just that by focusing on the score rather than enjoying the process of trying to score, you miss the greater part of the game. You are implying that goals are the only thing worth watching. Besides, no matter what the points incentive, a "5 point shot" - a 50m plus shot through at least 3 or 4 defenders plus a goalkeeper (even if you were to bring in a rule to prevent him using his hands on a 5 pointer) - is about as likely to go in the net as BP winning an environmentalist medal... when you really think about it, it's not in fact terribly exciting at all, just throwing away possession. In fact, you would probably be amazed at just how many games are won or lost in the last minutes. There is nothing wrong with the game, it's just not suited to your result-orientated point of view which is, much as I hate to generalise (and notwithstanding my previous tongue-in-cheek comments), typical of the American public.

Perhaps if you made your Soccer 2.0 a variant of indoor soccer, with a much smaller field, smaller teams, smaller net and perhaps a no-hands rule for the keeper, it may work... but it would be a totally different sport.
well, a grandslam home run (u.s., japanese, cuban, mexican, dominican, venezuelan baseball is infrequent too. it requires base runners on 1st, 2nd and 3rd base AND a batter who then hits a home run. very infrequent because of the circumstances involved but, except for a defense's triple play (three outs on one batted ball with runners on two other bases), a grand slam home run is truly a wonderful thing to watch happen. a five point goal would be rare but it would be a tv replay for a week, yes?
arena football (us-style football) has actually been gaining a following and it has become something of a different variant game (just like softball is a bit of a variant of baseball).

i like the idea of doing that indoors - aw, let the goalie use his hands, but no gloves.
I think STC was blown on laudanum when Kubla Khan came to him Brooks. What, pray tell, were you smoking, when you had your epiphany? ;-)
just exhaustion, no laudanum or any other psychotropic substance, unless you consider a good lunch to be one of those....
still the plan came to me in a dream...