Soccer being more popular among the population of the USA

That is the thing. This model (long amateurism and travel teams) which can function well for other sports, doesn't work as well for producing high-quality soccer players. There seems to be a critical period for skill development (somewhere around the pre-teen to early teen years) where a player really needs intensive instruction, and American players don't get that.

While an American kid is playing for his high school and traveling in the summer with his team (competing against other kids of that precise age), his European counterparts are in the youth section of professional clubs, and when they're good enough, move up to the senior team.

Football is a hell of a lot more complicated than soccer and it works fine. The problem is any kid who is a real athlete with a head on his shoulders in the US will play the big 3, they pay a LOT more than soccer. Basically MLS gets the dregs of US athletes for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Football is a hell of a lot more complicated than soccer and it works fine. The problem is any kid who is a real athlete with a head on his shoulders in the US will play the big 3, they pay a LOT more than soccer. Basically the MLS gets the dregs of US athletes for the most part.

This argument is regularly brought up , but I disagree. The US national team does not lack good athletes. It has plenty of fast, quick players. What it lacks is highly skilled players. That's because of inferior player development. Again, soccer is a very particular game. To be really skilled with a ball at your feet, you have to develop it when you're young.

Incidentally, elite soccer players like Messi and Ronaldo make a ton of money. Soccer is the world's most popular sport and its best players are global icons.
 
Last edited:
This argument is regularly brought up , but I disagree. The US national team does not lack good athletes. It has plenty of fast, quick players. What it lacks is highly skilled players. That's because of inferior player development. Again, soccer is a very particular game. To be really skilled with a ball at your feet, you have to develop it when you're young.

Incidentally, elite soccer players like Messi and Ronaldo make a ton of money. Soccer is the world's most popular sport and its best players are global icons.

The US doesn't lack good athletes, what it lacks is good athletes that want to play soccer when they can make much more playing football, baseball or basketball. Soccer gets the dregs. The US team might be fast players but they weren't fast enough to make wide receiver or small forward so they settle for playing soccer.

Do you think you don't need to develop your skills to hit an inside fastball coming at you at around 140 KM/Hr or throw said pitch or to make a diving catch at shortstop? What about throwing a 40 yard touch pass or juking past a defender to get open and make a catch between two defenders or slipping between two defensive linemen for a 5 yard play? For that matter intercepting a pass or tackling a large halfback or getting past 2 offensive linemen? Believe me you need to develop skills for US sports!

Global icons, yes but not US icons. Soccer players are virtually unknown in the US , few people know who they are or care. A kid in Brooklyn isn't looking to play in Barcelona, he is looking to play in Giant Stadium.
 
Last edited:
Giant Stadium
It's Metlife Now but the idea is the same, there is not that 'MLS is the league' when i even regret there was not American Football Team here, but coming back the point, i quote myself, make since begin people adopt football-soccer as own and keep that secuency, college is the key so they can exist or even replaced Gridiron Football later on, so maybe that make it since forever.
 
The US doesn't lack good athletes, what it lacks is good athletes that want to play soccer when they can make much more playing football, baseball or basketball. Soccer gets the dregs.

Again I disagree. The US national team is perfectly fine in terms of speed, quickness and leaping ability. What it lacks is skill, which is a result of poor youth development.

Athleticism isn't the most decisive factor in this sport anyway. Germany is the current world champion and yet, their team isn't necessarily loaded with super-athletes. They are highly skilled players in a very effective system.

Global icons, yes but not US icons. Soccer players are virtually unknown in the US , few people know who they are or care. A kid in Brooklyn isn't looking to play in Barcelona, he is looking to play in Giant Stadium.

I currently live in Michigan. Every day I see kids wearing soccer jerseys - Real, Barça, Man United, Arsenal, etc. There is a big generational gap here. Older generations of Americans don't pay attention to the sport, but a lot of people under 30 do.
 
Again I disagree. The US national team is perfectly fine in terms of speed, quickness and leaping ability. What it lacks is skill, which is a result of poor youth development.

Athleticism isn't the most decisive factor in this sport anyway. Germany is the current world champion and yet, their team isn't necessarily loaded with super-athletes. They are highly skilled players in a very effective system.



I currently live in Michigan. Every day I see kids wearing soccer jerseys - Real, Barça, Man United, Arsenal, etc. There is a big generational gap here. Older generations of Americans don't pay attention to the sport, but a lot of people under 30 do.

Football is much, much more complex than soccer. Football is not a sport that doesn't need to develop your skills. If anything it needs more development than any other major sport as it is by far the most complex major sport out there.

The problem is that soccer players in the US make much, much less than football players do in the US. The highest played MLS player makes $7 million. Peyton Manning makes $32 million in salary. Throw in endorsements and the gap is even bigger . Add in the fact that you are much more famous and it is easy to see MLS gets the second raters.
 
As pointed out that's a factor of arena size. (If that's true)

In terms of actual revenue the MLS is not in the same ball-park as the NBA.

The NBA had 4.8 billion in revenue in 2016, the MLS 461 million. For the talk of soccer overtaking Hockey the NHL posted 3.7 billion in revenue btw.

https://howmuch.net/articles/sports-leagues-by-revenue

Exactly, the numbers speak for themselves. When even hockey takes in over 8 times more revenue you can see the problem. Why play professional soccer when even hockey is more popular? Soccer gets the dregs in the US.
 
Football is much, much more complex than soccer. Football is not a sport that doesn't need to develop your skills. If anything it needs more development than any other major sport as it is by far the most complex major sport out there.

The problem is that soccer players in the US make much, much less than football players do in the US. The highest played MLS player makes $7 million. Peyton Manning makes $32 million in salary. Throw in endorsements and the gap is even bigger . Add in the fact that you are much more famous and it is easy to see MLS gets the second raters.

The issue is not about how complicated the rules of the game are. It is an issue of physiology. Most sports are played with your hands. Soccer is primarily played with your feet, and consequently is very particular regarding skill development. For whatever reason, the skills required to be talented with a soccer ball at your feet need to be developed at a young age. Once you have passed that age you will not be a star player, no matter how hard you work at it or how fast you can run. The problem is the US is that players do not receive quality coaching at those critical ages.

You could put Steph Curry, Marshawn Lynch, anyone else you want on the US team and it wouldn't be any better if it didn't improve its youth development.

It's not a coincidence that the one soccer position that the US is able to produce elite talent in is goalkeeper - the one position in which you are allowed to use your hands.
 
The issue is not about how complicated the rules of the game are. It is an issue of physiology. Most sports are played with your hands. Soccer is primarily played with your feet, and consequently is very particular regarding skill development. For whatever reason, the skills required to be talented with a soccer ball at your feet need to be developed at a young age. Once you have passed that age you will not be a star player, no matter how hard you work at it or how fast you can run. The problem is the US is that players do not receive quality coaching at those critical ages.

You could put Steph Curry, Marshawn Lynch, anyone else you want on the US team and it wouldn't be any better if it didn't improve its youth development.

It's not a coincidence that the one soccer position that the US is able to produce elite talent in is goalkeeper - the one position in which you are allowed to use your hands.

A lot of US soccer players (outside of Europeans picked up who are second raters in any case otherwise they would play in Europe) are boys who were primarily interested in other sports , couldn't make it on a college team so switched to soccer then. They probably played soccer as well but their primary interest is in some other sport. They couldn't (for example) make a college basketball team or a AA baseball team but played some soccer as a kid and switched. In the US, soccer players are the dregs.
 
A lot of US soccer players (outside of Europeans picked up who are second raters in any case otherwise they would play in Europe) are boys who were primarily interested in other sports , couldn't make it on a college team so switched to soccer then. They probably played soccer as well but their primary interest is in some other sport. They couldn't (for example) make a college basketball team or a AA baseball team but played some soccer as a kid and switched. In the US, soccer players are the dregs.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are about a generation out of date. Soccer is far more popular among young Americans than you realize.

Unfortunately, the system that is supposed to develop their talents is second-rate - and the national team will remain mediocre until that is fixed.
 
I'm sorry, but your arguments are about a generation out of date. Soccer is far more popular among young Americans than you realize.

Unfortunately, the system that is supposed to develop their talents is second-rate - and the national team will remain mediocre until that is fixed.

The system is fine. If is less the system but it is a fact that soccer coaches are second rate as well. The least talented coaches wind up coaching soccer. The good ones want to make the big bucks in football or baseball or basketball.

I am not a generation behind otherwise soccer would make more revenue than at least hockey. After all it is teenagers and young adults that are the most interested in sports.
 
The easiest way for this to happen would be the survival and success of the ALPF, which debuted with backing from the National League of Baseball in 1894-95. Teams were located in Brooklyn, Baltimore, Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia and Washington. How to make it succeed I wouldn't know.
 
The easiest way for this to happen would be the survival and success of the ALPF, which debuted with backing from the National League of Baseball in 1894-95. Teams were located in Brooklyn, Baltimore, Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia and Washington. How to make it succeed I wouldn't know.

Soccer could be more popular in the US with the right changes however it faces one problem. I don't think it is a coincidence that the big three were basically "born" in the US. Baseball was derived from cricket but a number of changes were made to make it different than the English game. The same thing happened to rugby and basketball was pretty much created out of whole cloth from a Canadian living in the US. Basically I think some changes would have to be made early to make it a "US sport" rather than a European one.
 
Exactly, the numbers speak for themselves. When even hockey takes in over 8 times more revenue you can see the problem. Why play professional soccer when even hockey is more popular? Soccer gets the dregs in the US.

In terms of individual profit you would be making magnitudes more playing in the NHL than MLS.

NHL average player salary: 2.6 million.

MLS: 309,000

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...n-major-american-sports-leagues/#6811d6831050

NHL players actually make more on average than NFL players but that has to do with bigger team rosters in the NFL and the more disposable nature of many of the positions.
 
In terms of individual profit you would be making magnitudes more playing in the NHL than MLS.

NHL average player salary: 2.6 million.

MLS: 309,000

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...n-major-american-sports-leagues/#6811d6831050

NHL players actually make more on average than NFL players but that has to do with bigger team rosters in the NFL and the more disposable nature of many of the positions.

While the minimum wage for a starting rookie in the NFL was $450,000 last year. https://www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2016-and-the-veteran-cap-benefit-rule/ so the minimum salary for an NFL player is over a third more than the average salary of a MLS player.
 
The secret to soccer (I cringe at that term so from now on I'll call it football) taking off in the United States is to get the lower league system set up. The reason why football dominated in England is at least partly the tribal element of following your own town or village. Sure, regional pride came in later on, but at the very beginning, people cared about their town. The fact is, almost every town in England, no matter the size, has a team (or several). So you have your Manchester Uniteds and Newcastle Uniteds, but at the same time you have teams like Durham City, Bishop Auckland, Ashington and such like which represent their communities. These smaller teams fuelled youth development and fed into the major teams, and in turn we saw more regional loyalties develop where people would follow the club from the nearest cities. Of course now people can follow clubs from across the country but that was rare until pretty recently.

The MLS simply can never have enough teams to develop this bottom-up approach. With all due respect, a new franchise in Minneapolis is not going to inspire people in Duluth, Fargo, Des Moines or Eau Claire to take up football. You have to start from the ground up, with local leagues first. There do seem to be parts of the Northwest that have this worked out but you have got to start local.

With that in mind, to get to that position now you will want football leagues emerging at a local level pretty early on, perhaps by 1920. Then more national leagues can emerge and have time to develop, as well as a regional tier below the top professional divisions where young players and more average talents can develop.
 
The secret to soccer (I cringe at that term so from now on I'll call it football) taking off in the United States is to get the lower league system set up. The reason why football dominated in England is at least partly the tribal element of following your own town or village. Sure, regional pride came in later on, but at the very beginning, people cared about their town. The fact is, almost every town in England, no matter the size, has a team (or several). So you have your Manchester Uniteds and Newcastle Uniteds, but at the same time you have teams like Durham City, Bishop Auckland, Ashington and such like which represent their communities. These smaller teams fuelled youth development and fed into the major teams, and in turn we saw more regional loyalties develop where people would follow the club from the nearest cities. Of course now people can follow clubs from across the country but that was rare until pretty recently.

The MLS simply can never have enough teams to develop this bottom-up approach. With all due respect, a new franchise in Minneapolis is not going to inspire people in Duluth, Fargo, Des Moines or Eau Claire to take up football. You have to start from the ground up, with local leagues first. There do seem to be parts of the Northwest that have this worked out but you have got to start local.

With that in mind, to get to that position now you will want football leagues emerging at a local level pretty early on, perhaps by 1920. Then more national leagues can emerge and have time to develop, as well as a regional tier below the top professional divisions where young players and more average talents can develop.

Easier to pull off in population dense GB than population sparse US. Even now there are areas in the US where you can go tens if not hundreds of KM in every direction without hitting a small town of over 250 people. It is more difficult to have small town leagues when the nearest small town is 50 KM away.
 
Top