If Leicester City win the Premier League, it will be one of the most captivating British sport stories in years. But how does a football-mad Englishman living in the US explain its importance to Americans?
"Lie-kester."
"No, Leicester."
"Less-ester?"
"No, Leicester. As in Lester."
"Oh. Why is it pronounced like that?"
Trying, and failing, to explain the mystery of English phonetics can be a daily task for Brits living in the US.
But when it comes to the Leicester City story, the how-to-say is not the only part that's lost in translation.
For those not yet aware, a small, unfashionable team based in England's East Midlands has somehow stormed the Premier League.
With four games left, Leicester City are five points ahead of anyone and barring a collapse, on course for their first top-flight league title in their 132-year history.
This team was in the third tier of English football in 2009, and after climbing to the top division, they spent months last season in bottom place.
They weren't just out of fashion, they were a byword for failure.
In 2008, when they were relegated to the equivalent of the third division, the Guardian newspaper wrote:
The crowds still filed in, greeting each new season with optimism, but all too soon the realisation dawned that the cheers from the stands were for nothing - everything the club once embodied had been hollowed out from the inside, leaving only a desiccated blue and white husk.
As recently as 18 months ago, the chairman of Marseilles said he would be a "sucker" to take an interest in signing any Leicester City player.
And their Algerian star player Riyad Mahrez says he thought they were a rugby club when they first expressed an interest in him
Should they win English football's most prestigious prize, some say the feat would be the most unlikely event in the history of team sports. Globally.
Bookmakers' odds on them winning the Premier League were 5,000 to one last summer. So it was five times more likely that Hugh Hefner would declare himself a virgin.
For a British sports fan living in the US, there's a natural inclination to share this footballing fairytale with friends. This, after all, is a story as much about the human spirit as it is about scoring goals.
Writing in The Players' Tribune, their manager Claudio Ranieri said: "This is a small club that is showing the world what can be achieved through spirit and determination. Twenty-six players. Twenty-six different brains. But one heart."
But mention Leicester City to American friends who don't closely follow English football and a blank look is the stock response. Or worse, a nod and a smile. Even from sports fans.
It's understandable. I'd have the same reaction if someone tried to enthuse me about, say, the San Diego Padres being on a winning streak.
So how to put it in terms that my American friends would understand? Has there ever been an American Leicester?
For help, I turned to team mates of mine on the football pitches of Shaw, a neighbourhood of Washington where every Friday night, the replica shirts of Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal worn by locals give the scene a semi-English flavour.
"Oakland As in baseball?" suggests Drew, a tough-tackling Wisconsinite, referring to the famous Oakland Athletics team under Billy Beane who used analytics to overcome more glamorous opponents, winning 20 games in a row in 2002.
Nice story but they never won the World Series, which is the equivalent of what Leicester could achieve in the weeks ahead.
Next?
"OK, how about Minnesota Twins?" says Joe, who supports West Ham.
"In 1991, they went from bottom of the American League West to winning 95 games on their way to a World Series title.
"And in gridiron in 1999, the St Louis Rams accomplished a similar feat, following a last-place finish in '98 with a championship of their own the very next year. "
Both good examples of an amazing one-season turnaround, but for teams with pedigree that's admirable, not historic.
There are structural reasons why the Premier League / US sport comparisons are imperfect.
There is no promotion or relegation in NFL or baseball, so a smaller team can't rise up through the ranks like Leicester has, in a way that pitches David against Goliath.
And the NFL operates a more level playing field than the Premier League, through a salary cap and by giving the weaker teams first pick of the best college players.
In English football, the reverse happens - the rich clubs tighten their grip on success because a higher placed finish gets a bigger cash reward and therefore they buy the better players. It's a virtuous circle of success feeding money feeding success.
As a consequence, only five teams have won the Premier League since it was set up in 1992. In that period, 14 teams have won the Superbowl.
That's what makes Leicester's potential feat on a comparative shoestring so remarkable, breaking into a rich elite. When they beat Manchester City recently, they overcame a squad that cost 15 times their own
Wichita, Kansas, similar population (roughly 375,000)
New Orleans, Louisiana, similar diversity (Leicester is majority non-white, 55%)
Belle Fourche, South Dakota, similar location (the geographical centre of England is Fenney Drayton in Leicestershire)
So if it hasn't happened in the US, what WOULD be the nearest thing to a Leicester triumph?
"The idea of Leicester winning the Premiership would be like the Cleveland Browns winning the Superbowl - unthinkable, and seemingly impossible," says Jeff Maysh, a British writer and football fan who is based in Los Angeles.
"In history there have been a couple of comparable performances in college basketball, which is more akin to a team winning the FA Cup on a lucky run, rather than Leicester's dominance in the league."
Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated thinks there's no direct comparison but the nearest would be if an AA (third division) baseball team managed to find its way - magically - to the major leagues and then won the World Series.
He puts Leicester's success down to the implosion of several of the big English clubs like Chelsea, some astute Leicester signings and new manager Ranieri.
After a troubled summer when the last manager resigned after a Thai brothel scandal involving his son, the club turned to a man whose Greece side had just lost to the Faroe Islands. Suffice to say, hopes were not high.
Now Ranieri is a folk hero in the East Midlands and there's even talk of a knighthood from the Queen.
There is also an English king's hand in their success, if you believe in superstition. Ever since Richard III's body was dug up from a car park in Leicester and restored to the city's cathedral a year ago, their fortunes have turned around.
The Very Reverend David Monteith of Leicester Cathedral has said that the re-interment added to the sense of civic pride.
"History has been buried and now it's revealed in all kinds of different ways, not least in the [football] match."
The Leicester story is so rich that sex scandals in the Far East and royal influence from beyond the grave are mere footnotes.
But back in Shaw, my footballing team mates have drawn a blank in trying to give it a US context.
"There really isn't an American sports analogy to Leicester," says Andrew, a Liverpool fan from Baltimore. "It has to be the most stunning underdog story in sports history."
Perhaps the best comparison lies not in sport but in politics, he says.
"Everyone said Donald Trump would falter in December but here we are in April wondering how he's defied the odds."
If England and America truly are two nations divided by a common language then sporting talk is where the chasm is at its widest. The different vocabulary used by fans in the US and UK - not just England - when discussing the same sports seems as entrenched as ever.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."
God, soccer is boring. Even that article bored me. I remember sitting in a Buffalo Wild Wings during the World Cup and people going wild. Did someone score? Nope, just a wild kick towards the goal that missed. You know a sport is boring when people get excited about that. Cut the damn field in half!
Don't feel like I am denigrating the culture- I think baseball is like watching paint dry, too.
Soccer does have top notch athletes, and enthusiastic fans, though! Good on those fans for supporting their team even during the low times. Cleveland is still hopeless, however.
And in other news...anything. Really, anything at all. Giant wombat pukes up Marilyn Munroe's old panties. Skyscraper gains sentience. Mark Hamill to voice all 4 Teletubbies. Shatner loses 100lb.
jmurph wrote: God, soccer is boring. Even that article bored me. I remember sitting in a Buffalo Wild Wings during the World Cup and people going wild. Did someone score? Nope, just a wild kick towards the goal that missed. You know a sport is boring when people get excited about that. Cut the damn field in half!
Don't feel like I am denigrating the culture- I think baseball is like watching paint dry, too.
Soccer does have top notch athletes, and enthusiastic fans, though! Good on those fans for supporting their team even during the low times. Cleveland is still hopeless, however.
To be fair, watching Zinadine Zidane headbutt that guy in the chest was pretty damn cool. And yeah, baseball sucks. America's past time my
jmurph wrote: God, soccer is boring. Even that article bored me. I remember sitting in a Buffalo Wild Wings during the World Cup and people going wild. Did someone score? Nope, just a wild kick towards the goal that missed. You know a sport is boring when people get excited about that. Cut the damn field in half!
Don't feel like I am denigrating the culture- I think baseball is like watching paint dry, too.
Soccer does have top notch athletes, and enthusiastic fans, though! Good on those fans for supporting their team even during the low times. Cleveland is still hopeless, however.
To be fair, watching Zinadine Zidane headbutt that guy in the chest was pretty damn cool. And yeah, baseball sucks. America's past time my
I love playing soccer. But watching it is boring as hell. Baseball is only worth watching if you're at the stadium, eating nachos and burgers, guzzling beer. Simply put.
And your knees. And your head. And your chest. And your hands if you're a goalie.
It more accurately should be called "watch overpaid people run around a field for 90+ minutes spitting and pretending to get hurt". But that's quite a mouthful for the average fan.
Nah, we just don't care about soccer as a sport. Or the endless badgering by "cultured" non-Americans telling us how awesome this silly little game is.
Don't worry, with the demographic shift underway America will get on board the soccer train, but not yet. So until then, kindly feth off.
I do wonder when soccer becomes more popular here what it will be called. Soccer as a term for the sport is pretty ingrained in our culture and football is obviously already taken, so will the soccer/football divide continue to plague American and non-American fans? Should be fun to watch!
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I do wonder when soccer becomes more popular here what it will be called. Soccer as a term for the sport is pretty ingrained in our culture and football is obviously already taken, so will the soccer/football divide continue to plague American and non-American fans? Should be fun to watch!
And it's football. You play with your foot, nearly every other country in the world also calls it football.
Doesn't make them right.
But at least soccer isn't as boring to watch as golf. I would rank top boring sports as:
1. Golf
2. Baseball
3. Soccer
Golf is a sport? I always thought it was some kind of nature documentary?
Ah, the rare Canadian NHL team in it's natural habitat. He winds up, swings... and into the pond. He'll have to do better than that if he hopes to attract a mate.
Fell in love with it while visiting my wife's relatives in England back in '98...
My wife tolerates my passion for soccer and even let's me watch it on TV when the national team plays or when my MLS team makes the playoff and I ask very nicely and rub her feet .
I've taken her to a few minor league games here in the city, and she has an okay time at them. They were at high school stadiums, so nothing fancy. I've never taken her to one of the MLS games, but I will probably change that this year.
But back in 2008 when we visited Germany I took her a game at the Allianz Arena to watch a Bayern Muenchen game and we sat in the fan section surrounded by the hardcore fans. After that game she was able to understand where my passion comes from and how the rest of the world is able to get this crazy about the sport.
Brits may call it "football" but "soccer" is also a brit invention.
Comes from Association football (Asoc. Football).
So apportion blame where it is deserved (Manchester should be blamed for everything! ).
My dad was the roundball sport tragic (but to be fair, he also watched and played golf, and was just as enthusiastic about cricket and thugby) - those genes passed me by.
r_squared wrote: Top most boring sports list that doesn't include snooker, test cricket or darts? Have a word with yourself.
Had to look snooker up. So its like pool?
Similar, but very much harder. Tables are 12'×6' and the balls and pockets are smaller. You're also required by law to wear a waistcoat, and wrapping a cue around someone's head for nudging your pint is frowned upon.
Watching it in the 80s on our 12" black and white portable telly traumatised me so much, I yelp a bit every time I see felt. Watching snooker is like having warm glue poured into your skull via your tear ducts.
As a die hard football (soccer) fan, I'll pretty much watch any game from any nation
I do watch a lot of Major League Soccer, and always find it amusing when the New England Revolution start blasting muskets every time they score a goal! You crazy Americans and your muskets!
On another note, soccer is the fastest growing sport in the USA. The MLS is growing every year, its overtaken the NBA in terms of average attendance, participation numbers are up and the USA gets better at every world cup.
To those American dakka members who don't like soccer, well, I'm sorry, but you'll have to deal with it!
And, China is also seeing a boom in soccer. Could we have a cold war sports occasion in the future? China Vs the USA at the football world cup?
As an American, I have to say I love Football (soccer), but hate American football. It's dull, too long and causes all sorts of stupid behaviour and 3 out of 5 reports anymore are "concussion!".
Thats not to say I don't enjoy playing it but it's a snore-fest to watch. I was fortunate enough to play Soccer when I was in school, and was hooked early. :p
I'm lucky enough that I have on of the best teams in the county here in my city so I get good opportunity to watch and even attend games.
But yeah Baseball and Soccer ftw. I'd even take Ice Hokey over American football.
It was interesting to see some storied clubs get relegated or are about to be relegated too.
Aye, my brother is a life long Villa fan (not sure why, we where in Cornwall at the time he started supporting them in the early 90's and they weren't doing anything special, I think he was just a fan of the Dean Saunders and Dalian Atkinson striking partnership to start) so yeah, been having some fun with him this season, sadly it seems Ipswich blew their chance to get up this year, which was the only positive he was taking from relegation as he'd be able to go see them live next year.
Although he seems to be convinced Villa is a shoe in to win the Championship next year, me, I'm more expecting them to do a Leeds from a number of years back with back to back relegation.
Alpharius wrote: I love watching English Premier League Soccer Football, and I really hope Leicester wins it all too!
Fell in love with it while visiting my wife's relatives in England back in '98...
It was interesting to see some storied clubs get relegated or are about to be relegated too.
I really wish that existed for many American Professional leagues too!
One of the things that has always surprised me about American sport is its attitude towards franchises and relegation.
Take NFL for example. America is supposed to be the land of Capitalism, but you guys don't have relegation, have a luxury tax on merchandise and players, and allow a draft system that lets the weak teams get first pick on good players! WTF
Sounds like socialism to me.
In contrast, never in a million years would this happen in Europe. Football in Europe is a ruthless, last man standing system, with relegation and billionaires pumping billions of pounds into the system as they attempt to crush their rivals.
It was interesting to see some storied clubs get relegated or are about to be relegated too.
Aye, my brother is a life long Villa fan (not sure why, we where in Cornwall at the time he started supporting them in the early 90's and they weren't doing anything special, I think he was just a fan of the Dean Saunders and Dalian Atkinson striking partnership to start) so yeah, been having some fun with him this season, sadly it seems Ipswich blew their chance to get up this year, which was the only positive he was taking from relegation as he'd be able to go see them live next year.
Although he seems to be convinced Villa is a shoe in to win the Championship next year, me, I'm more expecting them to do a Leeds from a number of years back with back to back relegation.
To be fair, Leeds dropped like a bunch of bricks. Its quite shocking how bad they did.
I hope Swansea do better next year, see how we fair against Leicester tomorrow.....
Given that Spurs are in second the collapse of the EPL elite is just baffling. Results in the Champions League recent years showed they were in serious decline but now even their hold on the domestic league is slipping.
On another note, soccer is the fastest growing sport in the USA. The MLS is growing every year, its overtaken the NBA in terms of average attendance, participation numbers are up and the USA gets better at every world cup.
I have to ask where you're getting those numbers....
I know that soccer is the fastest growing sport among women, but if you ask a lacrosse player or coach (or someone affiliated with it), they'll say that their sport is the fastest growing.....
And then we get to rugby, where we can show consistently large amounts of growth. I think sometimes we're the fastest growing in a given year, other years we're near the top (but this can also be shown world wide as well)
jmurph wrote: God, soccer is boring. Even that article bored me. I remember sitting in a Buffalo Wild Wings during the World Cup and people going wild. Did someone score? Nope, just a wild kick towards the goal that missed. You know a sport is boring when people get excited about that. Cut the damn field in half!
Don't feel like I am denigrating the culture- I think baseball is like watching paint dry, too.
Soccer does have top notch athletes, and enthusiastic fans, though! Good on those fans for supporting their team even during the low times. Cleveland is still hopeless, however.
Sorry I couldn't let that sit. How about American Football, I remember watching the superbowl at a Buffalo Wild Wings and people started going wild. "Did someone score?" Nope, just a wild pass towards the end zone that the receiver just missed. You know a sport is boring when people get excited about that.
On the other hand Hockey is fething awesome! the speed, the intensity and the rare bare knuckle boxing match that breaks out makes for some seriously solid entertainment.
Also, kudos to whoever made the joke about the natural habitat of Canadian Hockey teams being the golf Course!!! first time in how many years?
On another note, soccer is the fastest growing sport in the USA. The MLS is growing every year, its overtaken the NBA in terms of average attendance, participation numbers are up and the USA gets better at every world cup.
I have to ask where you're getting those numbers....
I know that soccer is the fastest growing sport among women, but if you ask a lacrosse player or coach (or someone affiliated with it), they'll say that their sport is the fastest growing.....
And then we get to rugby, where we can show consistently large amounts of growth. I think sometimes we're the fastest growing in a given year, other years we're near the top (but this can also be shown world wide as well)
Official attendance figures show that average attendance for Major League Soccer has overtaken that of the NBA, and that revenues of the MLS are growing every year at an impressive rate. Participation is up, and new franchises are being introduced.
Official attendance figures show that average attendance for Major League Soccer has overtaken that of the NBA, and that revenues of the MLS are growing every year at an impressive rate. Participation is up, and new franchises are being introduced.
Soccer is booming in the United States.
Ohh, you were talking at the professional level... gotcha. Most of what I personally see revolves around youth and amateur participation only
SemperMortis: No doubt on hockey. Hockey is insane!
I am still baffled that golf, darts, billiards, etc. are "sports". In my mind "sports" implies some primary level of athleticism and while those activities certainly require skill, if darts is a sport, so is wargaming!
Do_I_Not_Like_That: The NFL is a product of protectionism to keep out rival competitors. It is designed to keep the billionaire owners from ever considering any kind of alternative. It is completely in line with US capitalism- it protects the big boys and screw everybody else ;-)
And your knees. And your head. And your chest. And your hands if you're a goalie.
It more accurately should be called "watch overpaid people run around a field for 90+ minutes spitting and pretending to get hurt". But that's quite a mouthful for the average fan.
And your knees. And your head. And your chest. And your hands if you're a goalie.
It more accurately should be called "watch overpaid people run around a field for 90+ minutes spitting and pretending to get hurt". But that's quite a mouthful for the average fan.
Hockey, what soccer could have been.
Frazz, who's your nearest Major League soccer team? Houston Dynamo or FC Dallas? I ask this, because when these two teams play each other, the winner gets a cannon that was used in Texas' war against Mexico back in the day!
Rugby is growing quite well in the USA. In 10 years time, the USA could be a force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: SemperMortis: No doubt on hockey. Hockey is insane!
I am still baffled that golf, darts, billiards, etc. are "sports". In my mind "sports" implies some primary level of athleticism and while those activities certainly require skill, if darts is a sport, so is wargaming!
Do_I_Not_Like_That: The NFL is a product of protectionism to keep out rival competitors. It is designed to keep the billionaire owners from ever considering any kind of alternative. It is completely in line with US capitalism- it protects the big boys and screw everybody else ;-)
But what happened to dog eat dog capatilism in the USA? In Europe, it's last man standing when it comes to soccer.
Frazz, who's your nearest Major League soccer team? Houston Dynamo or FC Dallas? I ask this, because when these two teams play each other, the winner gets a cannon that was used in Texas' war against Mexico back in the day!
You crazy Texans and your guns!
Houston. As a nonTexan I will forgive the insult of confusing me with someone from Dallas.
Has to be a replica of one of "The Twins," or maybe the Gonzales cannon.
Frazz, who's your nearest Major League soccer team? Houston Dynamo or FC Dallas? I ask this, because when these two teams play each other, the winner gets a cannon that was used in Texas' war against Mexico back in the day!
You crazy Texans and your guns!
Houston. As a nonTexan I will forgive the insult of confusing me with someone from Dallas.
Has to be a replica of one of "The Twins," or maybe the Gonzales cannon.
I was wrong. It's El Capitan - a civil war replica cannon. Still, kind of funny to have a cannon as the trophy!
jmurph wrote: SemperMortis: No doubt on hockey. Hockey is insane!
I am still baffled that golf, darts, billiards, etc. are "sports". In my mind "sports" implies some primary level of athleticism and while those activities certainly require skill, if darts is a sport, so is wargaming!
As a comedian once said of bowling, and I will now apply to golf, billiards, and darts:
"Any sport you get better at the more you drink is not a sport..."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: SemperMortis: No doubt on hockey. Hockey is insane!
I am still baffled that golf, darts, billiards, etc. are "sports". In my mind "sports" implies some primary level of athleticism and while those activities certainly require skill, if darts is a sport, so is wargaming!
As a comedian once said of bowling, and I will now apply to billiards and darts:
"Any sport you get better at the more you drink is not a sport..."
Congrats to Leicester!
I guess I don't get the scope of it, but I can understand super under-dog finally set to win the big one. Maybe. Right?
Alpharius wrote: Nothing says 'staying on topic' like...actually staying on topic!!!
Leicester City inched closer with a victory on Sunday, but looks to have a bit of a test this week, while the Spurs...have a lesser challenge.
However, if LC wins and THS loses (or ties?) - they wrap it up, I think?
Maybe that was pending today's Spurs/West Brom match?
A quick 101 for you
Leicester are 8 points clear of Spurs with 3 games left.
Spurs have 4 games left, including today's game against West Brom, which has just started.
If Spurs win, they're 5 points behind. If they draw, 7 points behind. And if they lose, obviously, they stay 8 points behind.
after tonight, each team has 3 games left each for a total of 9 points to play for.
If it's a points tie at the end of the season, the winner is determined by goal difference (Spurs have the advanatge) and head to head record (Leicester has the advanatge)
Leicester are 8 points clear of Spurs with 3 games left.
Spurs have 4 games left, including today's game against West Brom, which has just started.
If Spurs win, they're 5 points behind. If they draw, 7 points behind. And if they lose, obviously, they stay 8 points behind.
after tonight, each team has 3 games left each for a total of 9 points to play for.
If it's a points tie at the end of the season, the winner is determined by goal difference (Spurs have the advanatge) and head to head record (Leicester has the advanatge)
But I can't remmeber which one comes first.
r_squared wrote: Top most boring sports list that doesn't include snooker, test cricket or darts? Have a word with yourself.
Had to look snooker up. So its like pool?
Similar, but very much harder. Tables are 12'×6' and the balls and pockets are smaller. You're also required by law to wear a waistcoat, and wrapping a cue around someone's head for nudging your pint is frowned upon.
Watching it in the 80s on our 12" black and white portable telly traumatised me so much, I yelp a bit every time I see felt. Watching snooker is like having warm glue poured into your skull via your tear ducts.
Reminds me of shooting pool here in the South in my younger, rougher days. Brass knuckles, ax handles, blackjacks, slap jacks,rolled coins, and pocket knives were just much standard pool equipment as the balls and cues. Drunks and billiards don't mix.
If Leicester City win the Premier League, it will be one of the most captivating British sport stories in years. But how does a football-mad Englishman living in the US explain its importance to Americans?
"Lie-kester."
"No, Leicester."
"Less-ester?"
"No, Leicester. As in Lester."
"Oh. Why is it pronounced like that?"
Trying, and failing, to explain the mystery of English phonetics can be a daily task for Brits living in the US.
But when it comes to the Leicester City story, the how-to-say is not the only part that's lost in translation.
For those not yet aware, a small, unfashionable team based in England's East Midlands has somehow stormed the Premier League.
With four games left, Leicester City are five points ahead of anyone and barring a collapse, on course for their first top-flight league title in their 132-year history.
This team was in the third tier of English football in 2009, and after climbing to the top division, they spent months last season in bottom place.
They weren't just out of fashion, they were a byword for failure.
In 2008, when they were relegated to the equivalent of the third division, the Guardian newspaper wrote:
The crowds still filed in, greeting each new season with optimism, but all too soon the realisation dawned that the cheers from the stands were for nothing - everything the club once embodied had been hollowed out from the inside, leaving only a desiccated blue and white husk.
As recently as 18 months ago, the chairman of Marseilles said he would be a "sucker" to take an interest in signing any Leicester City player.
And their Algerian star player Riyad Mahrez says he thought they were a rugby club when they first expressed an interest in him
Should they win English football's most prestigious prize, some say the feat would be the most unlikely event in the history of team sports. Globally.
Bookmakers' odds on them winning the Premier League were 5,000 to one last summer. So it was five times more likely that Hugh Hefner would declare himself a virgin.
For a British sports fan living in the US, there's a natural inclination to share this footballing fairytale with friends. This, after all, is a story as much about the human spirit as it is about scoring goals.
Writing in The Players' Tribune, their manager Claudio Ranieri said: "This is a small club that is showing the world what can be achieved through spirit and determination. Twenty-six players. Twenty-six different brains. But one heart."
But mention Leicester City to American friends who don't closely follow English football and a blank look is the stock response. Or worse, a nod and a smile. Even from sports fans.
It's understandable. I'd have the same reaction if someone tried to enthuse me about, say, the San Diego Padres being on a winning streak.
So how to put it in terms that my American friends would understand? Has there ever been an American Leicester?
For help, I turned to team mates of mine on the football pitches of Shaw, a neighbourhood of Washington where every Friday night, the replica shirts of Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal worn by locals give the scene a semi-English flavour.
"Oakland As in baseball?" suggests Drew, a tough-tackling Wisconsinite, referring to the famous Oakland Athletics team under Billy Beane who used analytics to overcome more glamorous opponents, winning 20 games in a row in 2002.
Nice story but they never won the World Series, which is the equivalent of what Leicester could achieve in the weeks ahead.
Next?
"OK, how about Minnesota Twins?" says Joe, who supports West Ham.
"In 1991, they went from bottom of the American League West to winning 95 games on their way to a World Series title.
"And in gridiron in 1999, the St Louis Rams accomplished a similar feat, following a last-place finish in '98 with a championship of their own the very next year. "
Both good examples of an amazing one-season turnaround, but for teams with pedigree that's admirable, not historic.
There are structural reasons why the Premier League / US sport comparisons are imperfect.
There is no promotion or relegation in NFL or baseball, so a smaller team can't rise up through the ranks like Leicester has, in a way that pitches David against Goliath.
And the NFL operates a more level playing field than the Premier League, through a salary cap and by giving the weaker teams first pick of the best college players.
In English football, the reverse happens - the rich clubs tighten their grip on success because a higher placed finish gets a bigger cash reward and therefore they buy the better players. It's a virtuous circle of success feeding money feeding success.
As a consequence, only five teams have won the Premier League since it was set up in 1992. In that period, 14 teams have won the Superbowl.
That's what makes Leicester's potential feat on a comparative shoestring so remarkable, breaking into a rich elite. When they beat Manchester City recently, they overcame a squad that cost 15 times their own
Wichita, Kansas, similar population (roughly 375,000)
New Orleans, Louisiana, similar diversity (Leicester is majority non-white, 55%)
Belle Fourche, South Dakota, similar location (the geographical centre of England is Fenney Drayton in Leicestershire)
So if it hasn't happened in the US, what WOULD be the nearest thing to a Leicester triumph?
"The idea of Leicester winning the Premiership would be like the Cleveland Browns winning the Superbowl - unthinkable, and seemingly impossible," says Jeff Maysh, a British writer and football fan who is based in Los Angeles.
"In history there have been a couple of comparable performances in college basketball, which is more akin to a team winning the FA Cup on a lucky run, rather than Leicester's dominance in the league."
Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated thinks there's no direct comparison but the nearest would be if an AA (third division) baseball team managed to find its way - magically - to the major leagues and then won the World Series.
He puts Leicester's success down to the implosion of several of the big English clubs like Chelsea, some astute Leicester signings and new manager Ranieri.
After a troubled summer when the last manager resigned after a Thai brothel scandal involving his son, the club turned to a man whose Greece side had just lost to the Faroe Islands. Suffice to say, hopes were not high.
Now Ranieri is a folk hero in the East Midlands and there's even talk of a knighthood from the Queen.
There is also an English king's hand in their success, if you believe in superstition. Ever since Richard III's body was dug up from a car park in Leicester and restored to the city's cathedral a year ago, their fortunes have turned around.
The Very Reverend David Monteith of Leicester Cathedral has said that the re-interment added to the sense of civic pride.
"History has been buried and now it's revealed in all kinds of different ways, not least in the [football] match."
The Leicester story is so rich that sex scandals in the Far East and royal influence from beyond the grave are mere footnotes.
But back in Shaw, my footballing team mates have drawn a blank in trying to give it a US context.
"There really isn't an American sports analogy to Leicester," says Andrew, a Liverpool fan from Baltimore. "It has to be the most stunning underdog story in sports history."
Perhaps the best comparison lies not in sport but in politics, he says.
"Everyone said Donald Trump would falter in December but here we are in April wondering how he's defied the odds."
If England and America truly are two nations divided by a common language then sporting talk is where the chasm is at its widest. The different vocabulary used by fans in the US and UK - not just England - when discussing the same sports seems as entrenched as ever.
Maybe it's just me, but I figured that everybody knew the correct way to pronounce Leicester City. I do, but I've been to the United Kingdom when I was in the Service.
I think there is possibly nothing more boring on the internet than people posting that the sports they were raised with are awesome, while the sports other people were raised with are bad.
What is interesting though is amazing sporting underdog stories. Whether you like soccer or not, when a bunch of guys who are paid 15 times less than the biggest teams in the league manage an upset win it’s pretty cool. And what Leicester has achieved is way beyond that – they’ve managed that kind of underdog performance through a 38 game season. It is incredible – it’s akin to Shaun Michael’s US PGA win early last decade – except instead of managing that one win from out of nowhere, it’s as if the guy then went on to a massive streak of wins and claim the #1 ranking.
It’s hard to find sporting results this unlikely, because honestly there aren’t that many leagues in any sports where things are so heavily favoured towards the top teams. But when it happens anyone who loves sport kind of needs to pay appreciate what has just happened, even if it is in a sport you don’t really care for.
It’s hard to find sporting results this unlikely, because honestly there aren’t that many leagues in any sports where things are so heavily favoured towards the top teams. But when it happens anyone who loves sport kind of needs to pay appreciate what has just happened, even if it is in a sport you don’t really care for.
From everything that I've read, last years' Highlanders winning the Super Rugby title was along the same lines as this feat.
But I do agree, especially in most American professional sports, there is a level of parity that means that a team that wins a championship isn't a mere fluke (even if people write/talk as if they are)
Not Leicester City related, but hopefully not totally Off Topic since it covers the growing soccer culture in the US. But here is a nice documentary about one of the tifos that the supporters group that I am a part off put together. You also get a 1 second long glorious clip of me waving a fancy flag if you pay attention
The UK's leading bookmakers face paying out more than £10m if Leicester City win the Premier League title.
.. shame eh ?
At the start of the season, 47 people placed a bet with Ladbrokes for Leicester to win the title at 5000-1 - of which 23 have cashed out, while 24 are still awaiting their fate.
"Leicester's win would be the biggest upset in the history of betting," Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes told BBC Sport. "It would be the worst result for us financially and our biggest payout by a distance.
"If Chelsea, Manchester City or Manchester United would have won, the total payouts would have been in the few hundred thousands.
"Leicester have been upsetting the odds all season but it is a brilliant Hollywood story that we are a part of. Hats off to anyone who backed them at the start of the season."
Last month, a Leicester fan cashed out for £72,000 from a £50 bet on his team to win the title.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: From everything that I've read, last years' Highlanders winning the Super Rugby title was along the same lines as this feat.
I know pretty much nothing about Super Rugby, or how its league operates, but I’d be keen to hear the story if you want to tell it.
But I do agree, especially in most American professional sports, there is a level of parity that means that a team that wins a championship isn't a mere fluke (even if people write/talk as if they are)
Baseball has disparity that's not as severe as premier league soccer, but comparable. It’s interesting that it is in sports like baseball and soccer that you can have a functioning, sufficiently competitive league without putting salary caps and drafts in place. Probably because in sports with relatively few scoring events, and an inherent amount of randomness due to the way the game works, you can get a kind of equalisation.
In American Football, or here in Australia in Australian Rules Football, if one team has more money and buys up players that are 10% bigger, 10% faster and 10% more skilful, then they’ll pretty much just steamroll the other side. But in sports like baseball and cricket the team that’s 10% slower and 10% less skilful is still a chance, if they take their wins at the key moments.
This does seem a lot more incredible now that I know that Soccer doesn't have any balancing rules like salary caps and drafts.
Makes the sport even less appealing when someone can just buy all the good players to win. Also it makes this underdog story a bit sad too since the guys winning could really be making a ton more at another team.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: This does seem a lot more incredible now that I know that Soccer doesn't have any balancing rules like salary caps and drafts.
Makes the sport even less appealing when someone can just buy all the good players to win. Also it makes this underdog story a bit sad too since the guys winning could really be making a ton more at another team.
On the surface, soccer does seem like the worst excesses of capitalism: dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, the strong survive, the weak perish
But, it has promotion and relegation, knock-out cup competitions...all of which boost entertainment.
And some of these rich teams weren't always rich - Manchester City used to be a bad joke in English football until a rich Arab bought them.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: This does seem a lot more incredible now that I know that Soccer doesn't have any balancing rules like salary caps and drafts.
Makes the sport even less appealing when someone can just buy all the good players to win. Also it makes this underdog story a bit sad too since the guys winning could really be making a ton more at another team.
It's an achievement but not as magical as it seems. The premier league does have some balancing mechanism, there is a squad size cap and it shares its massive TV revenue quite equally. In addition the league's income advantage allows even minor clubs to buy quality players from other leagues. Leicesters owners, a Thai business conglomerate, have invested quite a bit in players in recent years.
One mid table side over-performing isn't miraculous, but all 5 of the big money teams under performing in the same season is. Given that the Spurs are now in second place who normally always end up outside the top 4 just show how rare that occurrence is.
But back in Shaw, my footballing team mates have drawn a blank in trying to give it a US context.
"There really isn't an American sports analogy to Leicester," says Andrew, a Liverpool fan from Baltimore. "It has to be the most stunning underdog story in sports history."
Perhaps the best comparison lies not in sport but in politics, he says.
"Everyone said Donald Trump would falter in December but here we are in April wondering how he's defied the odds."
If England and America truly are two nations divided by a common language then sporting talk is where the chasm is at its widest. The different vocabulary used by fans in the US and UK - not just England - when discussing the same sports seems as entrenched as ever.
Is the massive funding disparity similar to Steve and Jeff down the street winning the F1 title with the car they built in their garage?
But back in Shaw, my footballing team mates have drawn a blank in trying to give it a US context.
"There really isn't an American sports analogy to Leicester," says Andrew, a Liverpool fan from Baltimore. "It has to be the most stunning underdog story in sports history."
Perhaps the best comparison lies not in sport but in politics, he says.
"Everyone said Donald Trump would falter in December but here we are in April wondering how he's defied the odds."
If England and America truly are two nations divided by a common language then sporting talk is where the chasm is at its widest. The different vocabulary used by fans in the US and UK - not just England - when discussing the same sports seems as entrenched as ever.
Is the massive funding disparity similar to Steve and Jeff down the street winning the F1 title with the car they built in their garage?
Almost.
Imagine Manor F1 winning the drivers and constructors championships. They may pick up a cheeky point but you really expect them to go bust or change owners.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: From everything that I've read, last years' Highlanders winning the Super Rugby title was along the same lines as this feat.
I know pretty much nothing about Super Rugby, or how its league operates, but I’d be keen to hear the story if you want to tell it.
But I do agree, especially in most American professional sports, there is a level of parity that means that a team that wins a championship isn't a mere fluke (even if people write/talk as if they are)
Baseball has disparity that's not as severe as premier league soccer, but comparable. It’s interesting that it is in sports like baseball and soccer that you can have a functioning, sufficiently competitive league without putting salary caps and drafts in place. Probably because in sports with relatively few scoring events, and an inherent amount of randomness due to the way the game works, you can get a kind of equalisation.
In American Football, or here in Australia in Australian Rules Football, if one team has more money and buys up players that are 10% bigger, 10% faster and 10% more skilful, then they’ll pretty much just steamroll the other side. But in sports like baseball and cricket the team that’s 10% slower and 10% less skilful is still a chance, if they take their wins at the key moments.
First easy one: Baseball does have a draft... however, unlike sports like say the NBA, or NFL, guys who get drafted into pro baseball are basically signed to a minor league deal, and then have to work up through the ranks (until recently I thought that the minor league teams were literally one single entity, owned by the major league club owner... But apparently each minor league team has its own ownership, they are literally trading contracts and people as though they were stocks or 40k models) That said, I do think that there are merits to the "academy system" that I see in England, or the provincial/regional selection process that New Zealand has for rugby, as the team ownership have a fairly decent idea of what it is they are getting in a player by the time they get to the "main" club.
As for the Highlanders... well, last year, Super Rugby had 3 divisions, SA, Australia, and NZ. In February, before the season kicked off, pretty much all of the pundits picked the 'Landers to finish at or near the bottom of the NZ table (Playoffs are determined by winning your division, with wildcard spots being determined by the more traditionally seen points table), Instead, they managed to play well enough to get one of the wild card spots, and then ran through everybody in the playoffs, winning the championship. This was in part because of the superstar, breakout play of some characters, as well as how "lucky" they were on the injury front.
Sadly, pundits are doing much the same thing to them this year (calling for a low finish)... but I've watched a number of videos and read articles on the restructured Super Rugby competition.... and still have pretty much no clue. They restructured because of adding some more teams, and needed a way to balance that out for playoffs.
But back in Shaw, my footballing team mates have drawn a blank in trying to give it a US context.
"There really isn't an American sports analogy to Leicester," says Andrew, a Liverpool fan from Baltimore. "It has to be the most stunning underdog story in sports history."
Does nobody read history??? There's the 1980 US Olympic hockey team beating an "unbeatable" Soviet team. There's the 1967 Jets, who won Super Bowl 3 against the Green Bay Packers (coached by legendary Vince Lombardi, and had players like Bart Starr and other HoFers) which happened during an era in which the AFL (now called the AFC, and part of a merged football league) really was an upstart nobody type league.
If I pull up the "way back in history" machine, there's the 1920 and 1924 US Olympic rugby team. Each year (and only 2 years, until Rio that Rugby was in the Olympics) the American team managed to take home gold, despite the majority of the team having grown up playing American Football. In 1924, it was especially shocking because in the gold medal match, they defeated a very robust and experienced French team. The scene was quite ugly, fans stormed the pitch apparently with intent to beat up or harm the Americans. The French players formed a ring around their American counterparts and got them back into the dressing rooms safely.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: First easy one: Baseball does have a draft... however, unlike sports like say the NBA, or NFL, guys who get drafted into pro baseball are basically signed to a minor league deal, and then have to work up through the ranks (until recently I thought that the minor league teams were literally one single entity, owned by the major league club owner... But apparently each minor league team has its own ownership, they are literally trading contracts and people as though they were stocks or 40k models) That said, I do think that there are merits to the "academy system" that I see in England, or the provincial/regional selection process that New Zealand has for rugby, as the team ownership have a fairly decent idea of what it is they are getting in a player by the time they get to the "main" club.
A draft doesn’t really achieve anything without a salary cap. If a team drafts well but has a tiny budget they’ll get raided long before those players have matured.
As for the Highlanders... well, last year, Super Rugby had 3 divisions, SA, Australia, and NZ. In February, before the season kicked off, pretty much all of the pundits picked the 'Landers to finish at or near the bottom of the NZ table (Playoffs are determined by winning your division, with wildcard spots being determined by the more traditionally seen points table), Instead, they managed to play well enough to get one of the wild card spots, and then ran through everybody in the playoffs, winning the championship. This was in part because of the superstar, breakout play of some characters, as well as how "lucky" they were on the injury front.
But Super Rugby still has salary caps and drafts, doesn’t it? At least I’ve assumed it has because how else could the Western Force continue to survive in a town that doesn’t give a single feth about Rugby Union?
If there are salary caps and drafts in place, then I don’t think this is quite the same as Leicester’s win. I think there’s a lot of instances of teams that are unflavoured having good seasons. In the AFL last year West Coast was picked to finish last or close to it, but ended up in the grand final (where they were smashed, but it was still something to get there). What makes Leicester’s win incredible is that the very structure of the competition is designed to give just a few teams a chance of winning.
sebster wrote: A draft doesn’t really achieve anything without a salary cap. If a team drafts well but has a tiny budget they’ll get raided long before those players have matured.
But Super Rugby still has salary caps and drafts, doesn’t it? At least I’ve assumed it has because how else could the Western Force continue to survive in a town that doesn’t give a single feth about Rugby Union?
If there are salary caps and drafts in place, then I don’t think this is quite the same as Leicester’s win. I think there’s a lot of instances of teams that are unflavoured having good seasons. In the AFL last year West Coast was picked to finish last or close to it, but ended up in the grand final (where they were smashed, but it was still something to get there). What makes Leicester’s win incredible is that the very structure of the competition is designed to give just a few teams a chance of winning.
You are right that teams with small budgets are often "raided" for players... But because of the system set up in baseball of the minor leagues, a small market team may be raided of very low round picks (as in, players from the 50th round) that turned out to be excellent prospects under the right conditions, whereas their top picks from the first few rounds didn't pan out. It's why I think if you pay attention to player trading in baseball, you see the majority of "prospect trades" are players that are playing in AA and AAA ball (the upper levels of the minors, or "almost big league ready" type guys)
AFAIK, rugby in the southern hemisphere doesn't have a draft either. Perhaps others can fill us in, but I thought NZ and such used a similar setup to the English with an "academy" system.... I do know that the Chiefs, Blues, Hurricanes, Crusaders, and Highlanders are "select" teams comprised of players chosen from the ITM cup teams. So in a way, the ITM cup acts as a sort of minor leagues for the Super Rugby franchises (and by extension, the All Blacks)
But I do agree with you.... most leagues, even Super Rugby are designed to be competitive. BPL and soccer in general don't seem to share that view, which makes it something of a wonder to me why so many people remain fans of the sport.
Antario wrote: One mid table side over-performing isn't miraculous, but all 5 of the big money teams under performing in the same season is. Given that the Spurs are now in second place who normally always end up outside the top 4 just show how rare that occurrence is.
Even as a Spurs fan I'm still very happy for Leicester and will cheer for them wholeheartedly when they clinch the title. As for the other big 4 (last year's top 4):
Chelsea - Exploded due to Mourinho's 3rd year curse. No team should keep him beyond the second year ever again.
Man City - Focused primarily on Champions League due to Pellegrini only caring about that. Even if he won the league Guardiola would still replace him.
Arsenal - Only ever finish 3rd or 4th these days. This isn't under achieving for them, it is exactly their goal.
Man Utd - Continued their slide into post-Fergie reality, sped along by the board's inability to declare their decision re Van Gaal.
So it is not so much a case of big money failing but upper management not reading the trends.
And they've done it. Spurs were held to a 2-2 draw by Chelsea, crowning the Foxes Premier League champions for the first time in the club's history, and earning their place as one of the greatest success stories in the English football league.
Spurs were held to a 2-2 draw because Chelsea put one in at the 83 minute mark haha, just when they may have been thinking they were safe. I've been giving it to my mate who is a spurs fan for a few weeks now, and this is just the best. Poor guy.
100% fair play to them, terrific to keep it up all season especially with their budget, # of games, injuries and being able to cope with the big pressure games.
Refreshing to see.
Bookmakers, like Coral, estimate the industry as a whole will have lost around £20m. Yet they sound almost as exhilarated and excited by Leicester City's win as the lucky punters and the fans, because although they are facing steep losses as a result (Coral £2m and Ladbrokes £3m), for them it's a great story.
and allow a draft system that lets the weak teams get first pick on good players! 
