One theory I read about this is that soccer is a third-world sport: all that is really needed to play is a ball, the rest can be improvised.
The closest one comes to this among US sports is baseball, whose "stickball" variant needs only the most rudimentary tools.
But Americans can afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth, so we play the more sophisticated sports.
And NASCAR means little to someone who's never owned a car, or even driven one. Baseball means nothing to someone who's never stood in the batter's box or stretched to catch a line drive. Yet with just a simple soccer ball, anyone can try kicking, passing, handling, rolling, etc.
It is entirely possible to play American football with just a few kids from the neighborhood, a ball, and some trees to act as boundaries.
SD
“But Americans can afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth, so we play the more sophisticated sports.”
I can afford football helmets (I did actually play a bit of American football) and baseball gloves. I’d just rather play with a soccer ball.
Germany is hardly a third world poverty hole either, and they’re second only to Brazil in the number of World Cup wins.
The average rugby union player is not poverty-stricken and that game requires no more equipment than soccer. Cricket requires more equipment than soccer yet very poor kids in India lap it up.
The theory really doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
Are you suggesting that Brits, French, Germans and Italians etc cant afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth?