The NFL vs. Soccer: Which Version of Football Reigns Supreme?

It’s the eternal debate. Globally, no sport reigns supreme like soccer. Nationally, no sport reigns supreme like football. On one side you have 22 men and a ball rolling around for hours, scoring opportunities are rare but when the ball does get in the goal, the announcer’s call alone gets registered on the Richter scale. It’s not complicated but a lot of us still don’t get it. The rest of the world sees “beauty” in the game, while many Americans have nodded off for a nap. When you wake up to catch the ending, the crowd is going berserk and some crazies are defining ‘hooliganism’ in the stands. The riot police are called, and you wonder what you could’ve possibly missed in a game that ended abruptly with a final score of 1-0.

They’re equally perplexed across the pond. Remember NFL Europe? That didn’t exactly take off. Every year the annual game in London is hyped and every time they show crowd reactions the English look confused. Probably, because they’re collectively wondering how any morons could call this game “football.” Roger Goodell’s effort to globalize dementia and early onset Alzheimer’s is going to take longer than you’d think. Euros just aren’t as attracted to our brutish game like we are. It’s going to take more than an annual contest between random squads to undo centuries of European history.

Consider it "nationalistic" or "ignorant" if you want. On one side we argue for soccer. On the other we argue for football. It’s part-debate, part-schizophrenia. The bottom line is: you'll have to be the judge. It’s the U.S. against the world. The NFL vs. Soccer: Which Version of Football Reigns Supreme?

RELATED: The 22 Best Soccer Players Under 22 to Watch in Europe This Season
RELATED: The 50 Most Brutal Hits in NFL History

The very basis of the NFL's league structure, along with that of the other North American majors (MLB, NBA, NHL), is monopolistic. The NFL actually lost its anti-trust lawsuit with the USFL in 1986, confirming that in the eyes of the United States legal system, the league is anti-commerce. And it is. The NFL is a closed league, meaning that it controls how many teams are allowed to compete, where those teams can be located, and who can own those teams. It's a cliquey Mean Girls-style co-op, and it's bullshit. Owners can hold cities hostage over new stadium deals by threatening to move, and there's no punishment for owners running their teams into the ground, as revenue sharing and television monies ensure continuous and astronomical cash flows. It's a closed system that's rigged for profit.

Instead, if an NFL team does poorly, they're rewarded with high draft picks. Only in North American sports does such a forced redistribution of new labor take plac. Imagine if Wal-Mart, Ford, Apple, Sony, and Exxon-Mobile held a draft for new executives fresh out of Harvard, Yale, and other prestigious institutions of learning. Insane, right? By having a closed league, it's not necessarily within the best business interests of owners to win or to promote progressive ideas to help the league, because the teams exist in an artificial vacuum of profits and new talent. Complacency rules.

Yet across the pond in Europe, anyone—yes, anyone—can form a professional soccer club regardless of who you are, what geographic location you intend to occupy (there are currently 13 professional clubs in London. The Giants and Jets would flip a shit if the NFL tried to add a third NYC team), and how much money you have. If your club wins, you move up the divisional ladder, earning promotion to stronger leagues with increased financial benefits. It's a simple meritocratic system: Win and move up to greener pastures, lose and move down to worse times. (Deloitte estimates that promotion to the English Premier League is worth a total of £98 million in new revenue to clubs.)

A league with financial implications that are purely based on winning and losing puts pressure on owners to field winning teams, which fans absolutely love. The relegation and promotion system is the fairest over all, and looks even more attractive to fans compared to the anti-competitive nature of the NFL.

Hey, you're not allowed to start off with a good point, damn't!

I wouldn't remain consistent if I sided with the NFL. After all monopolies are total bullshit (and I'm still sore about their money grubbing ruining video game football). But, if a gun was forced to my head and the man holding it was so unstable that he barked "Defend the NFL's monopoly!" After my initial confusion, I would argue that the consolidation of talent is what makes the league great. No other league is poaching players, so for a lot of them the choice is the NFL, an office job, or the register at Arby's. After a few mundane years in a cubicle, a profession with a serious risk of brain trauma doesn't sound too bad.

The draft pick order is not so bad. After all, do you reward already successful teams with their top choice of prospects? Do you reward large markets with a salary capless bonanza. After the Broncos win the title this year should they add JaDeveon Clowney and beat everybody in 2014 by an additional five points a game? Part of the attraction of the NFL is parity. There's a few dominant franchises, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a worst-to-first turnaround. It happens all the time.

Owners threatening to move is one of the worst qualities in American sports. There's really no solid counterpoint there. Just wait until the MLS grows and we'll see if your precious soccer turns into the same type of rich villain every other U.S. league has become. There really is no positive argument for the NFL monopoly. European soccer does better in that respect.

If you have any intent of watching a player clear the board of goose-eggs then the NFL is your game (though it may be getting a little unbalanced in favor of offense). In sports, an occasional defensive battle is entertaining to watch, if you want an example watch the Seahawks. But, when 16 teams combine to score 15 goals in a sport where 2-0 is a barnburner then the sport is (way) too unbalanced in favor of the D. When your team goes down 1-0 it may be time to tune out. After all, that's like overcoming a 40-point deficit in the 4th quarter.

Then you have ties. Mountains of them. If you're the type to get excited by a tie then you probably shat yourself in anticipation for long campus lectures or the prospect of getting socks for Christmas. When the holidays roll around you can't wait for the annual Scavenger Hunt, and actually listen with intent about what your in-laws have been up to this past year. Some people defend ties and argue that "Americans are less equipped to handle the concept of a tie than any other nation on earth." The catch is that they say it as if it's a bad thing. When you go into a diatribe about imperialism you're reading way too much into a game.

How about a simple explanation. I set out a few hours of my day to watch other people play a sport. All I ask is that they be competent, and that somebody wins the damn game. A win makes me feel good. A loss makes me feel bad. Either way I feel something. That justifies what would otherwise be a waste of time. In a tie I feel neutral/nothing. Soccer fans can come up with whatever ridiculous justification they need in order to tell themselves that ties are great. But they're not. They're a wash.

"Concussion" is an ugly word in NFL circles these days. In light of the $765 million settlement between the league and former players over the matter, the NFL now has 765 million reasons to keep everyone hush-hush over the c-word. It's not going away though. No amount of concussion research, no amount of money spent on lawsuits, and no rule changes can alter the clacking of helmets and pads you hear after the ball is snapped. The NFL sells a sport that kills its participants over time. How can anyone support that without some sort of moral objection, no matter how slight?

We don't want the NFL or the game to stop, because we don't have the answers to the long-term heath problems of its players, but if the public doesn't acknowledge and critically assess the problem in an open forum, then the league won't bother searching for answers. And to those who say, "Well nobody is forcing the athletes to play, and they still participate knowing the risks today because they all get rich," tell that to Junior Seau's mom. We're sure she would rather have her son back over the $28.2 million that Seau made in his career. The concussions, the deadly long-term effects, and the NFL's present and historical stance on the whole matter is still not acceptable.

Yeah, (mostly) agreed. The concussion epidemic is the best shot for America to embrace (see: be forced) to endure weekends packed with soccer "action." It's a dystopic vision so depressing that a man may be forced to give up fall sports and find meaning in his life. There's no simple solution to solving the problem because visceral hits are part of what makes the sport so alluring. Over the past decade, we've seen a watered down product where you almost root against your team laying lumber to prevent an automatic first down for the opposition.

The blame the fans approach has never quite made sense because everyone (players most of all) knows the game is dangerous. True, the NFL used quack physicians and litigation to prevent education on the subject. That's on their hands. But it may behoove a player to hang up his big jockstrap a year or two early to prevent bouncing his head off of concrete-like turf because he can't quite give up the adulation.

Not to sound like a phony rehashed political talking point, but take some responsibility. Use your head while it still works. It also might benefit the league to get serious about drug testing. 270 lbs guys running 4.5's so frequently comes bigger collisions. Someone should do a Sports Science on that. You know, instead of having Kevin Love try to out rebound a sumo.

Fantasy Football has become an institution in this country. Sometimes it seems the NFL simply exists to give context to this increasingly popular hobby. After all, most people care more about winning their $250 grand prize than seeing their favorite team march towards the Lombardi. If Fantasy's your game, so be it. It gives meaning to otherwise pointless matchups. When the Jaguars play the Titans in Week 16 you may be glued to your set hoping Chris Johnson will go hog-wild.

Dudes sitting in church are tuning out sermons to play a hunch on a Fantasy App. Matthew Berry's entire job is telling you who to start and who to sit every Sunday. His actual title is Senior Fantasy Analyst (wouldn't you love to see that on Monster someday?). Basically, the point is that Fantasy alone provides more entertainment than soccer. It gives subtext to the league that every other major sport tries to emulate but can't replicate. Fantasy baseball, basketball, (and maybe soccer...who cares?) exist but they can't quite catch on like football.

Google "fantasy EPL," and you'll have more than enough options to satisfy your fantasy thirst. The Premier League's website, FOX, ESPN, and Yahoo! all offer fantasy EPL games, so don't sweat it. If that's what gets you more engaged with the league, then go for it. Watch Robin van Persie bag goals for Manchester United and fantasy points for your "How I Met Your Mata."

Like the NFL, most games around top-flight European divisions are played at the same time, so it's easy to track. Let's not act like the NFL is special when it comes to fantasy sports. It's just that we've allowed ourselves to become so consumed with the game that we find ourselves rooting for our fantasy players even if they're playing against our IRL team. How fucking lame is that? Keep it casual, and always remember: Fan first, fantasy team second.

The rules of soccer are pretty simple: Without using your hands, put the ball in the opposing team's net without fouling or going offsides. The only subjective calls to be made concern fouls and offsides—there's a lot less reliance on humans to call the game and screw it up (remember the NFL's Replacement Referee problem?). While the NFL has a litany of rules, soccer keeps it simple. While the NFL has set plays and rehearsed openings, soccer values individualism, and free-thinking on and off the ball. Sure, there are tactics, and the advent of organized formations and lineups undoubtedly led to a popular sophistication of the sport, but all of that is addressed pre or post game.

Once the whistle blows at kick-off, there are no scripted open-play moves. Just football. At its best, it appears rehearsed, but that's because the players have trained to the point of natural synchronization. You just know where your striker is going to move, or where your number 10 likes to receive the ball. There's a common spatial and tactical understanding across the team that leads to passing moves that are unlike any sport. And of course, there's still room for the expressionism of Ronaldinho or the genius of Matt Le Tissier. There's a reason why it's known as the "Beautiful Game," while the NFL's version of football has been called "armoured egg-chase" in Europe.

An NFL fan should concede that penalties in the sport are annoying. There's nothing worse than watching a player streak into the endzone only to see a yellow hanky come out for a ticky tack holding call. That being said, you see a bunch of crappy calls in soccer. For a game with, like, two rules, the refs seem to botch a simple concept. Whenever you see a phantom offsides call you think the refs must've been lulled asleep by the sport's inaction. When a goal is scored, someone must've cheated because nobody ever scores in soccer.

Watching a defensively-minded football team (which is rare these days) face off against a ground and pound/Manning audible/Chip Kelly spread offense is a matching of strategy less dangerous than setting up a lounge chair on a battlefield. The requisite inaction between plays is dull, but it provides context to each and every situation, while also giving you time to take a piss. Soccer may be more complex (pun intended) than it appears, but it's still full of one-on-one turnovers and five straight minutes of inactivity as the players pass around the center line over, and over, and fucking over.

Soccer can be individualistic all it wants but it's still tantamount to watching Joe Buck call a chess match. If you ever have to babysit a bunch of kids, roll them a soccer ball and let them burn off any excess energy they may have. But sit down and watch a pro match in my leisure time? I think I'd rather put my fingers in the tiger cage at the zoo.

Diving is a problem in soccer, yes. But for every dive, there are 1,000 more examples of players carrying on after contact. In fact, referees encourage it by "playing advantage" instead of stopping the game for the foul. Check out this GIF of Arsenal's Theo Walcott getting fouled twice in the penalty box, but carrying on to score. OH MY GOD HE DIDN'T DIVE.

How many times have you seen a defensive player keel over 10 seconds after the play is over, lie on the turf like a toddler in play sand, and wait for the training staff to come over and coddle him? Just about every game, right? Defensive players faking injuries has become such a big problem that the NFL actually sent out a memo in the preseason to teams telling them to cut the shit. Just last week, Jerry Jones accused the Giants of faking injuries. Brilliant that an actual defensive strategy to slow down a hurry-up offense or to stop the clock near the end of the game is to fake an injury, right? Who's the wolf-crying sack of shit now?

The number one response you hear when you tell people you hate soccer is that "you're ignorant." As if only an enlightened mind can accept glorified cardio and an epidemic of guys sacrificing all dignity for a slight chance at a penalty. They're all very highbrow until somebody hucks a road flare on the field. Some have even gone so far as to call it "wonderfully individualistic and freeing!"

The whole world tries to use soccer as evidence of the lack of sophistication in American society. In truth, the rejection of soccer is one of the black-and-white issues that America has 100 percent correct. Football (as in American football) all weekend is one of the reasons not to mind the fall. Shorter days, school's back in session, but college football (the best sport on Earth) and the NFL all day on the weekends. Replace that with soccer and you might as well build your own life instead of gluing yourself to the couch.

Anytime someone points out how lame soccer is, people attack them as ethnocentric and unable to appreciate the beauty of the "world's game." "Typical American fan" too ignorant to understand what the rest of the world has embraced. Bullshit.

It's true that American football attracts "Buffalo Wild Wings" fans who feel they have to be loud to impress everyone around them. Still, that (somehow) beats a trendy hipster trying in vain to convince you that you're watching poetry in motion. Oh, wow, the guy's breaking away and the crowds roaring but there's still four guys in front of them. Oops, somebody just kicked the ball out of bounds. Well, that was great.

There's a reason why people go bat-shit crazy like you wouldn't believe over goals: it's because they're so precious. You wait extended periods of time between them, so when they actually happen, the adrenaline rush and euphoria feels like an actual orgasm. The fact that many American fans can't appreciate the intricacies in another sport speaks to how small-minded they are. In hockey, basketball, and American football, everything is linear; there's a clear path towards scoring. You have to go one way: forward. That isn't always the case in soccer. There are sustained build-ups that involve backwards and sideways movement (crosses), passing patterns, and variations in space and skill that need to happen to create the end product. It's not always end-to-end action, but hey, at least it's 90 minutes of sustained play. I'll take that over the 11 minutes of actual play in an average NFL game.

You idiots really sit there for three hours, enduring endless advertisments and "television breaks" just for 11 minutes of real action? If you go to a live NFL game, the wait time of commercial breaks—I mean natural stoppages in play—is maddening. Just get on with it! No wonder the NFL is such a great sport to drink to; you gotta do something to numb your senses while literally nothing is happening in front of you. And while you may think that the American soccer fan archetype is a "trendy hipster," I suggest paying a visit to Anfield for a Liverpool-Manchester United match. Then we'll see who's got the tough fucking fans.

It's hard to objectively rank one league above another sport, especially when the degree and scope of fan involvement for each varies domestically and internationally. The NFL is the most powerful and most profitable league in the world, has a firm grip on millions of Americans, owns the television ratings, has some of the most intense action in professional sports, and completely dominates our lives during the season. Whether it's planning our schedule around the games or setting our fantasy lineups, Americans live and breathe football during that 19-week season.

Soccer, however, has slowly but surely began to make in-roads into American sporting culture. The rest of the world is absolutely crazy over the game's beauty and meritocratic structure, and only now are American fans taking a serious interest in clubs overseas and at home with the MLS. The fact that tons of Americans across the United States are willing to wake up at ungodly morning hours on weekends to watch "their club" in England, or Spain, or Italy, or Germany—places that they've never visited or really know much about—speaks to how hungry Americans are for soccer, or the original "football."

Neither sport is without their faults. Corruption, diving, and a serious superiority complex of certain American soccer sects are threats to the game at home and abroad. And of course with the NFL, the closed league structure and concussions will always stain the league to some extent. Each sport has serious challenges ahead if they want to grow in influence and improve in product, but hell, we'd be damned if we didn't want to live in a world where both thrived.