The only thing I can think of is because we're still behind as far as a "soccer culture".
But that doesn't really answer any real questions, does it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2023-2024 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only thing I can think of is because we're still behind as far as a "soccer culture".
But that doesn't really answer any real questions, does it?
Lack of good leaders-culture it appears from European eyes.
You have picked a lot of leaders from outside US when it comes to Women's football at least. If you can't grow good leaders, it isn't much foundation there.
Good luck with the Women's team, with the past Chelsea-coach. All National teams from Europe looks forward to beat you ☺️
Diogo Costa is indeed one of the best keepers in football. I was really hoping Man Utd would spend what was necessary to buy him last summer, but they opened for the slightly cheaper / more familiar option in Onana — the jury is still out on him, to say the least.
I think I'd agree that Jan Oblak has been the best keeper in football for some years now. Costa, Maignan and Donnarumma are all at least fairly close.
I think I'd agree that Jan Oblak has been the best keeper in football for some years now. Costa, Maignan and Donnarumma are all at least fairly close.
But we shouldn't be. Kids are playing soccer year round here now. The Euro's have caught, or almost caught us, in basketball. (If they weren't divided up into so many countries, I suspect they would trounce us), so why can't we cath them and LA in soccer?
My sense is that while soccer has become more popular in the US, and the infrastructure has improved, unlike the UK, (and much - if not most - of Europe), it remains far from the most popular sport in the country.
This means that, in the US, talented kids who like ball games already have American football, baseball, and basketball competing for their attention and time - all three of which are far more popular, far better funded, have well developed, well resourced (and well funded and popular) leagues, - than is the case with soccer.
In other words, in the US, from what I can gather, you are starting out with a far smaller pool of potential players, as other sports (often offering well funded college scholarships) may prove more attractive to talented sportspeople.
This is not the case in Europe (or South America), where soccer/football is by far the most popular sport in almost every country, and is understood by, known about, discussed, (and supported by) almost everyone, men, women and children, the upshot of which means that the sport will always have a large - sometimes, a very large - number, or pool, of potential players to draw upon as almost everyone with any sporting talent plays it.
Outside of the US, nobody follows (or knows about, or has any interest in) American football, or baseball, and, while basketball does have some small support base internationally (Lithuania, and Georgia from the Soviet Union had some interest in basketball, I seem to recall), its appeal is very limited internationally; however, almost everyone knows about, and follows - to a greater or lesser extent - soccer.
Last edited:
Football/soccer has several particularities that increase its competitiveness.
It is a very democratic sport, almost anyone can excel at it. You have players of all sizes and physical builds.
At the same time while you can structure a youth system the only thing you really need is a ball. And several world class players learned the game without even a proper leather stitched ball. Sometimes all they had was something made out of socks.
Being a team sport it reduces the effect of a uniquely talented individual. Only GOAT candidates have at times managed to carry a team forward and usually from countries which usually already field very reasonable teams.
At the same time the team is not so large that smaller countries can't field a balanced team. Empirically I would say that 10 million is the minimum population for a very competitive country. And only 11 play at a given time. of course having a large pool is great (how many world class teams could several countries make?) but a great starting 11 and perhaps one or two class replacements is sometimes all you need.
At the same time while being a very simple game to start playing proper competitive football is a very tactical and strategical game. Like most awesome games it is in short very easy to start and very hard to master. This of course favours experience and a structure.
All this doesn't favor larger countries with large resources with not much experience to pour into the game.
What do kids play in the US? When I was a kid we played football all year long, between classes, after classes and during holidays. Most of the time in smaller places without goals. Here the hero doesn't score goals or does tackles, he dribbles the opposing team and then does the same again backwards. Most knew they would never become players (I knew, I suck at it) but everyone just loved the game so much.
It is a very democratic sport, almost anyone can excel at it. You have players of all sizes and physical builds.
At the same time while you can structure a youth system the only thing you really need is a ball. And several world class players learned the game without even a proper leather stitched ball. Sometimes all they had was something made out of socks.
Being a team sport it reduces the effect of a uniquely talented individual. Only GOAT candidates have at times managed to carry a team forward and usually from countries which usually already field very reasonable teams.
At the same time the team is not so large that smaller countries can't field a balanced team. Empirically I would say that 10 million is the minimum population for a very competitive country. And only 11 play at a given time. of course having a large pool is great (how many world class teams could several countries make?) but a great starting 11 and perhaps one or two class replacements is sometimes all you need.
At the same time while being a very simple game to start playing proper competitive football is a very tactical and strategical game. Like most awesome games it is in short very easy to start and very hard to master. This of course favours experience and a structure.
All this doesn't favor larger countries with large resources with not much experience to pour into the game.
What do kids play in the US? When I was a kid we played football all year long, between classes, after classes and during holidays. Most of the time in smaller places without goals. Here the hero doesn't score goals or does tackles, he dribbles the opposing team and then does the same again backwards. Most knew they would never become players (I knew, I suck at it) but everyone just loved the game so much.
I agree with this, but I think you can achieve this with less than 10 million, a couple of examples:
Denmark, with 5+ million people, won the Euro in 1992 (fun fact: I was in Denmark at the time - at Roskilde Festival - and the locals went nuts...), and has qualified for most international venues since.
Croatia, with less than 4 million people, had come 2nd and 3rd for the last two world cups.
You also had Iceland, with about 350+ thousand people, has occasionally been very competitive, like beating England in the Euro 2016.
American football... nonstop as well... again, we don't have the culture.
Kids get made fun of for playing soccer. Still.
But - our footy culture is growing... fingers crossed.
Last edited:
Football (soccer) in the US does not have the financial appeal/draw that the more popular sports do. American football, baseball and basketball can earn a player millions of $$$ and make them extremely rich. Soccer cannot do this thus when a player is both talented in soccer and one of the other more major sports, when looking to their future that player is going to more likely chose the sport that is not only going to make them rich but also a sports star.
Don't get me wrong, the US has many many talented soccer players at all levels BUT the extremely talented players, the ones who could be the new Messi or Ronaldo or Maradona or Best or Buffon (to name a few) are not interested in soccer because they also happen to be talented in one of the other more major sports, a sport that has more money and more prestige.
For example, a young lad plays both soccer and American football throughout his school and college years and is extremely talented in both. Soccer coach says to the lad he could be the next Messi or Ronaldo because he is that good. His American football coach says he could be the next Tom Brady or Joe Montana. Remember, the lad is American and lives in the US. Where in your opinion which sport do think the lad is going to pick to focus on for his future? If it was me, living in the US and thus looking towards my future it would be American football because in my eyes that is where the money and prestige is.
Don't get me wrong, the US has many many talented soccer players at all levels BUT the extremely talented players, the ones who could be the new Messi or Ronaldo or Maradona or Best or Buffon (to name a few) are not interested in soccer because they also happen to be talented in one of the other more major sports, a sport that has more money and more prestige.
For example, a young lad plays both soccer and American football throughout his school and college years and is extremely talented in both. Soccer coach says to the lad he could be the next Messi or Ronaldo because he is that good. His American football coach says he could be the next Tom Brady or Joe Montana. Remember, the lad is American and lives in the US. Where in your opinion which sport do think the lad is going to pick to focus on for his future? If it was me, living in the US and thus looking towards my future it would be American football because in my eyes that is where the money and prestige is.
Exactly.
Our MLS players don't get paid nearly as well as our NFL, MLB, and especially NBA players do...
Excellent post.
Actually, I vividly recall watching an impromptu football game played by kids in the schoolyard (I would guess that they were very early teens, maybe twelve or thirteen year olds), during a coffee break in the school where we were being briefed (and received training for a few days) on my very first International Election Observation Mission in a small town in southern Bosnia, in 1997, very shortly after the war.
Okay, the kids knew that a few of us internationals - clutching our coffee cups - were standing there just watching them, but, at the time, I was deeply struck by how extraordinarily skilful they were; it was clear to me that these kids - in what had been a war-torn country - had already played football on a regular basis for years.
This is also very relevant.
In Europe, and South America, football (soccer) - because of the popularity of the sport, and the numbers playing the game - attracts and absorbs the equivalent financial resources.
But according to those on TV, this should be the Golden Age of US Soccer. What I think they mean by that is that the players on the team now grew up only playing soccer. Basically year-round.
But we shouldn't. We have a much larger population than those who beat us so it should even out a bit.
But our top players do play in Europe. Don't think any play in the MLS. They play in the Premier, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga etc.
Should be?
Really?
Perhaps it is.
But, look where you have started from; it was quite a low base.
My point is that a great many other people - far more, in fact, than played soccer - in the US grew up playing other games.
Here, comparative numbers (how many play soccer as opposed to play other games in the US?) rather than absolute numbers are what matters.
Do more people play baseball, American football, basketball, than play soccer?
If more people play other games, this doesn't matter.
Not necessarily.
And not if other games are a lot more popular, and thus, absorb (or attract) much of - most of - the available funding.
Last edited:
IMHo, we peaked in 2014 and Klinsmann screwed the proverbial pooch by not including Landon Donovan in the WC team...
So here we are...
So here we are...
The team could have certainly done with Donovan's experience. Donovan's omission from the squad was controversial for many with the then US manager Klinsmann saying his omission was due to other players being a bit ahead of him.
It certainly shows the difference in mindset between the likes of Klinsmann who left out the countries best player because he thought there were players who were ahead of him and Southgate who will take injured players over fully fit ones because according to Southgate even when injured they are still better than fully fit alternatives.
Donovan was an excellent player and he should have been in the squad in my opinion. He would have made that US team that bit more better.
After Spain scored it was a completely different game.
Germany look favourites right now to win in extra time.
Germany look favourites right now to win in extra time.
Lol. This is true of the writer as well!
Will watch England - Schweiz today.
See if there will be a 'sharp Swiss knife' hidden somewhere, would'nt surprise.
Lot of headlines says: 'it's not coming home' - but the englishmen might get their sh## together.
No favorites for me, just hope for a good game, with hopefully some drama 😎
See if there will be a 'sharp Swiss knife' hidden somewhere, would'nt surprise.
Lot of headlines says: 'it's not coming home' - but the englishmen might get their sh## together.
No favorites for me, just hope for a good game, with hopefully some drama 😎
I always go into these expecting a loss and that’s the best mindset I think. Makes winning even better too but think this will be our last match tbh.