No footballsoccer: what does the sporting scene look like?

We all know exaclty how popular football/soccer* is in the world, and how obsessive some may become regarding it...

But what if this form of football never emerged? What then? What might fill it's place, and would any game rise to popularity like it?


*Or, more correctly, Association Football, betraying its origins.
 
Soccer is so popular because it's relatively simple to play (don't take that as a dig on soccer, because it's also my favorite sport). All you need is a few people, a ball, and something you call goals. Not like, say, baseball, where you need all kinds of equipment, and a better laid out field, et cetera.

So I imagine another simple sport would rise to dominance.

Perhaps Flatball (aka Ultimate Frisbee), though I highly doubt that would exist without soccer. Maybe basketball.
 
well water polo, execpt for the pool, looks just like soccer (coming from someone who has never played it before, I'm really clueless).
 
Some form of rugby, perhaps? If no other sport had exerted dominance in place of football in the UK, expect a baseball takeover in the 20s and 30s....
 
Rugby is probably the safest bet, given that both share the same origins. What would be interesting however is the sociological impact that would accompany a lack of football (this being the first mass working class sport) and whether another urban game would rise to fill the void if rugby stubbornly refused to cross class lines
 
Rugby is probably the safest bet, given that both share the same origins. What would be interesting however is the sociological impact that would accompany a lack of football (this being the first mass working class sport) and whether another urban game would rise to fill the void if rugby stubbornly refused to cross class lines

Soccer was also originally an upper-class game. But if rugby didn't make the jump, maybe that's where baseball could come in.
 

bard32

Banned
Professional Frisbee and kite running. :D Seriously, kite running's a major sport in Afghanistan.
 
Rugby is probably the safest bet, given that both share the same origins. What would be interesting however is the sociological impact that would accompany a lack of football (this being the first mass working class sport) and whether another urban game would rise to fill the void if rugby stubbornly refused to cross class lines

Crossing class lines is hard with rugby because of the higher potential for serious injury. A toff can afford to spend three months out of action recovering from a smashed calf- a factory worker can't.

I'd say the cricket/baseball family is your best bet.
 
Football/soccer is as ievetably as sealion has to fail, even more so.

Football is, as was pointed out before, incredibly easy. You need a "ball" (actually a tin does it aswell - as youi might remember) and something youi call a goal - marks on a wall.

Than, football has the highest probability for non-favorites to win. Thats makes it so great to play for everyone, because you always have the chance to win, even if the others can hndle the ball better(yes, i am german :D).

Finally, if you give a ball to an one-year old - he will kick it.

Baseball is sooooo not the game to play - not enough running involved.
 
All you need is a few people, a ball, and something you call goals. Not like, say, baseball, where you need all kinds of equipment, and a better laid out field, et cetera.

This I disagree with. All you need to play baseball is a two-by-four or other appropriately sized piece of lumber, something roughly equivalent to a ball, a couple of items you can call bases.
 
Crossing class lines is hard with rugby because of the higher potential for serious injury. A toff can afford to spend three months out of action recovering from a smashed calf- a factory worker can't.

That is, if you don't mind me saying so, a rather southern English view (I have no idea what your actual origin or location is, sorry...) - how does this theory explain the popularity of rugby in South Wales mining communities or northern mill towns (rugby league in the latter case)?

The biggest problem with rugby is that it needs football to grow out of, as much as any of the other sports do. Cricket or baseball are probably good bets, but what about non-ball team sports like some variety of tag getting a higher profile? Heck, Kabaddi is already pretty big even in OTL, maybe in the ATL it (or something like it) would go global...
 
This I disagree with. All you need to play baseball is a two-by-four or other appropriately sized piece of lumber, something roughly equivalent to a ball, a couple of items you can call bases.

Indeed, stickball games in the back alleys and city streets, largely in the US Northeast, is where quite a few major leaguers would have gotten their start.

It's remarkably easy for four or five kids to dig up a broom handle and a rubber ball, and use cars/parking meters/cardboard boxes/etc. as bases.

Naturally, the game loses a bit in translation to stickball, but that's mostly a function of it being a street/playground game, and it's something true of almost any sport played with pick-up rules (i.e. no adjudication/refereeing, and not always on a marked field or court).

So, yeah, baseball or cricket would be a very likely bet to replace it. I'm not familiar enough with cricket's structure to know where it could be pared down for street play (which you would definitely need to have the same kind of working-class appeal as football), but I assume it can be done.
 
So, yeah, baseball or cricket would be a very likely bet to replace it. I'm not familiar enough with cricket's structure to know where it could be pared down for street play (which you would definitely need to have the same kind of working-class appeal as football), but I assume it can be done.

Yup. Wicket painted on a wall, schoolbag on the ground for the bowler to run up to (Or on more open ground, two schoolbags for wickets), and pretty much anything as a bat or ball (as a kid I played cricket with a tennis racket, and I doubt I'm the only one). Send the ball through somebody's window and you're out. Street cricket probably looks very similar to stickball, as you describe it.
 
Yup. Wicket painted on a wall, schoolbag on the ground for the bowler to run up to (Or on more open ground, two schoolbags for wickets), and pretty much anything as a bat or ball (as a kid I played cricket with a tennis racket, and I doubt I'm the only one). Send the ball through somebody's window and you're out. Street cricket probably looks very similar to stickball, as you describe it.

Agreed. Street cricket is actually rather simple to get organised, one item for wickets, a ball, and a piece of wood for a bat, and you got your game.

Cricket is a good bet to take over from soccer, perhaps.
 
Top