as an American who loves both sports (with a bias towards American Football) i actually agree with this on a number of levels. one response that comes to mind, however, is with his assertion that there is no creativity/clever though in American football. it can certainly be inferred from this that it is not so much a lack of creativity as a difference in where and among whom that creativity is concentrated and most important. based on this, one could easily argue that American football coaches are, by comparison, forced to use their creativity/critical thinking on a far higher level than are football ("soccer") coaches, as American football coaches have to constantly observe player matchups and specific personel packages on the fly during the downtime between each play. this is largely what informs the instructions that the players are then supposed to follow, and the process of determining and individually assigning the proper duties to eleven individual players in a span of 40 seconds (time on the play clock after a play has ended in the NFL) is no easy task. this is part of why i love American football, as i try to watch it as a coach would and figure out what instructions players might be given prior to the start of a play based on who is on the field and where. conversely, Cleese's comment about how football plays out like jazz i found to be a very apt comparison that accurately describes why i appreciate it as a sport, as well. i still say that a comparison of the two is largely irrelevant, as they are two entirely different sports with two entirely different mindsets and approaches.

tl:dr: creativity is present in both sports, it's just a difference of who is primarily utilizing it, both sports are awesome.