Subject: Probably because American "football" rarely features feet.
Author:
Posted on: 2014-05-01 03:13:00 UTC
I say this as an American: I really have no idea why American football gets exclusive rights to the name "football" here when the word fits soccer so much better. Baseball has bases as a central component of scoring points and winning the game. Likewise with basketball, and racketball, and volleyball(a volley isn't a physical object, but it counts as something important, and it's something that happens to the ball), and the ones that don't have "ball" in the name are usually named with something crucial to the game in mind. Feet aren't that iconic an element to American football. I mean, neither form of football would work if you had no feet, but that's how it is for most sports. You don't get much of a sense of how important feet are to the progression of the game in American football. In association football, feet are kind of the whole gimmick of the sport, which makes it a little odd that it's referred to as the contracted "soccer" in this one location. I guess it's like the use of yards as a unit of measurement rather than the more universal meters. America likes to say it's special when talking to the other countries.
Besides, there can be so many better names for American football! Tackleball! Rushball! Helmetball!
I had intended those as a joke, but rushball actually sounds like a good sport name.