Yea, just look at the MLS as an example. The US hosted the World Cup in '94, started a successful domestic league, had the population/climate to support widespread interest in soccer, and we're...
Yea, just look at the MLS as an example. The US hosted the World Cup in '94, started a successful domestic league, had the population/climate to support widespread interest in soccer, and we're still nowhere close to being a "power" of any kind. The MLS has turned out to be a much better developmental tool for other CONCACAF nations that it has for the American team.
I think a big part of the US's problem is there are too many alternatives. For most powerhouses in Europe and South America, most children learn to play at a young age and grow to idolize the...
I think a big part of the US's problem is there are too many alternatives. For most powerhouses in Europe and South America, most children learn to play at a young age and grow to idolize the pros. In the US, the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc are older and more established. The kids want to be the next Lebron James or Tom Brady and focus their energy and attention on those sports rather than soccer. The US focuses on a top-down approach rather than getting the youth excited about soccer. Everyone wants immediate gratification, rather than taking the time and money to get youth attention and development fixed.
It's certainly true, but you could still argue that the population size is sufficiently large to support a better national product. 1-1.5 million people tune in to watch major Premier League...
It's certainly true, but you could still argue that the population size is sufficiently large to support a better national product. 1-1.5 million people tune in to watch major Premier League matchups with AM kickoffs in most of the country. My local 4th tier(ish) NPSL club has drawn 15-20k on multiple occasions in a city of <200k!
Everyone wants immediate gratification, rather than taking the time and money to get youth attention and development fixed.
I would place more emphasis on this part of your comment. We're too reliant on ineffective collegiate programs and lack the professional academies that develop early and churn out talent. I think the excitement and idolization among youth is there, just not the systemic support to turn it into something. I know some MLS teams have started youth-to-professional style academies, but I'm not that knowledgeable about them.
I dispute that. The US could already have been a powerhouse if they really wanted to. There are more than enough kids playing soccer for the US, and have been for years, without trying to compete...
I dispute that. The US could already have been a powerhouse if they really wanted to. There are more than enough kids playing soccer for the US, and have been for years, without trying to compete with the NBA, NFL, etc. for athletes. The problems have been the structure of the youth soccer, the makeup of the USSF itself, and investment in communities, and like so much else in the country, they're a reflection of how class, race, and opportunity intertwine in the US. There's an inherent challenge in that the country is so big that traveling for competition is pretty much always going to be a factor, and that means the kids from poorer, often immigrant backgrounds get priced out, despite being the ones with the dreams of being the next Messi and not the next Tom Brady. That's exacerbated by the fact that the USSF has long been aligned along an exclusively Anglo/Nordic-European outlook on everything, which left kids of those immigrant communities (Latinos in particular) as a huge untapped resource until basically the past 10 years. Even MLS clubs today still have their struggles figuring out how to attract and integrate Latino fans into their "ultras." All of that is aside from the issue of attracting the 6'4", 225 lb high-schoolers to play, and I think if Pep's Barca and 2008-2012 Spain didn't show any doubters how overvalued that is, they'd missed the point.
Paul Gardner has written about this stuff for years. You can find decades-old Soccer America columns chastising the USSF for their blind spots.
W.r.t. population, well, Belgium, whose international squad is a mind blowing team of great footballer, has a population of 11mln. Even Iceland managed a great team that did good enough last world...
W.r.t. population, well, Belgium, whose international squad is a mind blowing team of great footballer, has a population of 11mln. Even Iceland managed a great team that did good enough last world cup.
I think whether i will succeed depends on three things: do kids enjoy playing it, do clubs invest in youth, and does average Joe watch it. Population is not a big factor IMHO.
it basically isn't a factor at all, yeah. the estimated modern population of all other world cup winning countries combined besides brazil is 360,475,847, against the US's 327,167,434. even brazil...
Population is not a big factor IMHO.
it basically isn't a factor at all, yeah. the estimated modern population of all other world cup winning countries combined besides brazil is 360,475,847, against the US's 327,167,434. even brazil itself though has a hundred million less people than the US, at just 210,147,125, which is enough of a difference to be able add at least two other world cup winning countries while still failing just short of equal to the modern population of the US.
Yea, just look at the MLS as an example. The US hosted the World Cup in '94, started a successful domestic league, had the population/climate to support widespread interest in soccer, and we're still nowhere close to being a "power" of any kind. The MLS has turned out to be a much better developmental tool for other CONCACAF nations that it has for the American team.
I think a big part of the US's problem is there are too many alternatives. For most powerhouses in Europe and South America, most children learn to play at a young age and grow to idolize the pros. In the US, the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc are older and more established. The kids want to be the next Lebron James or Tom Brady and focus their energy and attention on those sports rather than soccer. The US focuses on a top-down approach rather than getting the youth excited about soccer. Everyone wants immediate gratification, rather than taking the time and money to get youth attention and development fixed.
It's certainly true, but you could still argue that the population size is sufficiently large to support a better national product. 1-1.5 million people tune in to watch major Premier League matchups with AM kickoffs in most of the country. My local 4th tier(ish) NPSL club has drawn 15-20k on multiple occasions in a city of <200k!
I would place more emphasis on this part of your comment. We're too reliant on ineffective collegiate programs and lack the professional academies that develop early and churn out talent. I think the excitement and idolization among youth is there, just not the systemic support to turn it into something. I know some MLS teams have started youth-to-professional style academies, but I'm not that knowledgeable about them.
I dispute that. The US could already have been a powerhouse if they really wanted to. There are more than enough kids playing soccer for the US, and have been for years, without trying to compete with the NBA, NFL, etc. for athletes. The problems have been the structure of the youth soccer, the makeup of the USSF itself, and investment in communities, and like so much else in the country, they're a reflection of how class, race, and opportunity intertwine in the US. There's an inherent challenge in that the country is so big that traveling for competition is pretty much always going to be a factor, and that means the kids from poorer, often immigrant backgrounds get priced out, despite being the ones with the dreams of being the next Messi and not the next Tom Brady. That's exacerbated by the fact that the USSF has long been aligned along an exclusively Anglo/Nordic-European outlook on everything, which left kids of those immigrant communities (Latinos in particular) as a huge untapped resource until basically the past 10 years. Even MLS clubs today still have their struggles figuring out how to attract and integrate Latino fans into their "ultras." All of that is aside from the issue of attracting the 6'4", 225 lb high-schoolers to play, and I think if Pep's Barca and 2008-2012 Spain didn't show any doubters how overvalued that is, they'd missed the point.
Paul Gardner has written about this stuff for years. You can find decades-old Soccer America columns chastising the USSF for their blind spots.
Is climate change having/poised to have any effect on prevalence of either sport?
W.r.t. population, well, Belgium, whose international squad is a mind blowing team of great footballer, has a population of 11mln. Even Iceland managed a great team that did good enough last world cup.
I think whether i will succeed depends on three things: do kids enjoy playing it, do clubs invest in youth, and does average Joe watch it. Population is not a big factor IMHO.
it basically isn't a factor at all, yeah. the estimated modern population of all other world cup winning countries combined besides brazil is 360,475,847, against the US's 327,167,434. even brazil itself though has a hundred million less people than the US, at just 210,147,125, which is enough of a difference to be able add at least two other world cup winning countries while still failing just short of equal to the modern population of the US.
Population per se is not the big factor, but economy is, and that's supported by population size.