Spending the first two weeks of the World Cup in the USA was a fascinating experience, not least because America finally seems to be appreciating the beautiful game. On previous visits I’ve found pockets of fanatics in certain sports bars, and general indifference everywhere else. But, despite traditionally preferring its football to be played in helmets and shoulder pads, this summer the game they call soccer seemed to be everywhere.

It was on TV, in bars, on billboards, on T-shirts, and, crucially, in the minds of the public. Around ten years ago I wrote an article called The Round Ball Game, looking at how soccer had progressed in the US since the 94 World Cup and found that, despite creating the professional MLS and vastly improving its international team (one player I singled out was a 20-year-old Landon Donovan), the great American public didn’t really seem to care. In 2010 this really seems to have changed.

I started in California, where the time difference meant the World Cup constituted breakfast telly. (Every morning I woke up to the sound of vuvuzela…) The US coverage was provided by ESPN, with some key games being screened on ABC. And pretty good the coverage was, too. The team was very familiar, including commentators Martin Tyler and Ian Darke, and pundits Ruud Gullit, Roberto Martinez and, erm, Steve Mcmanaman.

There were also a few unlikely co-commentators popping up here and there (Efan Ekoku, Robbie Mustoe…), and that inimitable statistic-heavy lingo so representative of US sports seemed a bit out of place when applied to football. During the USA v England match we were informed that it was the fourth time in 17 matches that the US had allowed a goal in the first 15 minutes… or something equally banal.

But the broadcasters really did seem to be making an effort. The game was more often than not referred to as football, not ‘soccer’, and nil-nil draws were no longer ‘zero-zero ties’.

ESPN’s Sportscenter news programme regularly led with the World Cup, often ahead of the ongoing NBA finals, and the coverage also extended to network news bulletins, which provided round-ups and goals, and paid close attention to the US team’s fortunes.

The World Cup also seeped into US TV’s numerous ad breaks, with many companies using football to sell their products, and several of the ads we’ve seen over here airing over there, including Nike’s Rooney-in-a-caravan Write The Future campaign.

I was in Hollywood for the USA v England game, and ended up watching it in a bar full mostly of fellow tourists. The event was a bit of a damp squib but at least ESPN didn’t cut to an ad during Gerrard’s goal. Irate friends back home watching on ITV HD pointed out that I was the only one of them who saw the goal live, despite being an extra 5,000 miles away.

On a side note, almost every bar I went in during my trip broadcast sport in HD (and, unlike the majority of UK bars, in the proper aspect ratio). The first time I ever saw HD sport was in California a few years ago, and now it seems pretty much standard in the bars and hotels – hopefully a sign of things to come back in stoneage Blighty. ESPN also broadcast some World Cup games in 3D – something neither BBC or ITV managed over here.

Moving around California I was struck by the number of football shirts I saw – Brazilian fans with face paint and flags, Japanese fans with, well, cameras, obviously. Locals also seemed fascinated with the World Cup. Store greeters and people in elevators asked me about games. The guy behind the bulletproof window in a Santa Monica gas station said to me, wide-eyed and shaking his head in amazement, ‘Did you see Germany this morning, man? 4-0! 4-0! Incredible!’

Of course, that 4-0 win was a rarity during the early days of the competition in that it provided goals. I was worried that the general lack of excitement on offer might dampen American enthusiasm, but then I watched the NBA finals decider. It made the most lacklustre World Cup stalemate seem exciting.

By the time of England’s game against Algeria I was on the other side of the country in New York. This time I watched the match in a sports bar favoured by the US team’s Sam’s Army, and was surrounded by already inebriated American fans who took a fervent anti-England stance, and spent the build-up singing charming ditties such as ‘Freedom From Tyranny’. The US team had just come back from 2-0 down to draw 2-2, and free drinks promotions from both Magners and Miller only improved the atmosphere.

The chanting intensified during repeated showings of a jingoistic car ad depicting George Washington seeing off the pesky British army in a Dodge Challenger. I could deal with the chanting, but I must admit the whooping and high-fiving did start to grate. As it happens, the utter ineptitude of England’s performance soon wore the US fans down, and sheer boredom eventually caused them to shut up and drift away.

Outside, Times Square had been turned into a bit of a fan park, with racked seating, sponsors’ promotions, and all of the games shown on the many huge screens. The area was evacuated shortly after the England v Algeria match due to a jumper on an adjacent building. There was nothing to suggest it was a disgruntled England fan. (He didn’t jump, by the way, but it was an impressively efficient operation by the NYPD to clear thousands of people in a matter of minutes.)

Later, as we wandered through posh Greenwich Village, a group of lads in US team shirts burst out of a bar with a football and took turns kicking it at a lamppost across the street. You wouldn’t bat an eyelid at this sort of thing in the UK, but here it seemed symbolic of the general positive attitude of the Americans to the World Cup.

There’s no doubt this country is sports mad, but does it have room in its heart for ‘soccer’? If reaction to the US team’s qualification for the last 16 is anything to go by then the answer could be ‘yes’. It’ll be interesting to see how far the US can go, and how World Cup 2010 changes the country’s affection for to the greatest game of all.

Paul Football USA, World Cup