Nige you misunderstand what I think Freeloader is saying. He's not saying everyone can't afford the equipment, but a lot can't. Obviously many people in Europe can afford it, they just don't give a fuck about it. There a lot of impoverished nations/3rd world countries that seriously can't afford the equipment. It costs decent money to equip an American football team. The money they do have is just simply better spent on other stuff. You need a ball and a field with goal posts for soccer. That's it. I have to think there are public soccer fields the world over, even in 3rd world countries.
So yeah, a sport that has less costly equipment will be more accessible than one that uses a lot of it.
What's the difference between a soccer field and a football field?
Essentially they're both grass with posts & markings. You need a ball for both and off you go. The only other thing Americans need is helmets & body pads which shouldn't be that much more expensive. Are American Football posts & field markings so expensive? Come on.
Funding a soccer team is expensive too with all the training equipment too. You just don't see it. The money that goes into training equipment is very expensive. There's a lot of equipment you need. If you saw the cost of training equipment & facilities you would be shocked to the core.
In general though you can play both kinds of football on any old field with a ball. The only difference is the posts & helmets/pads. That's it. There are American Football teams over here but it's just not that popular compared to other sports. In some cases some less well off families won't be able to afford it but the same goes for other sports also with costs of boots, pads, kits etc. The cost issue affects all sports at a grass roots level.
Just remembered that there are plenty of rugby fields the world over that have essentially the same posts. That wouldn't stop American Football fans playing on there. It doesn't stop us playing Australian footy whose posts are different and we play with two less.