soccer in the US
Jun. 16th, 2006 11:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerA college friend recently wrote to me in some bemusement, asking about soccer.
> Even I have noticed that A) the World Cup exists, and B) the US Team has no chance.
I would not say that. No chance of winning the tournament? Yes, but most of the teams in it have no chance of winning. It's almost certainly going to be Brazil, Germany, Italy, Czech, France; possibly Argentina, England, Netherlands, but less likely.
> Why is this country incapable of fielding a competitive team?
It's not. If it weren't competitive, it wouldn't have gotten to the World Cup. There are over 200 national teams around the world. Only 32 get to the World Cup, and they have to play a LOT of matches to get there. We have a good team. Not a great team, but a good team.
> My best answer is that soccer is the sixth choice for the most athletic men in the US.
> Baseball & Golf offer most money with longest career, and least contact/injuries.
> Basketball and American Football offer a lot of money and a lot of prestige/endorsements.
> Hockey, well, American Hockey is almost as good as Canadian or European hockey.
>
> Am I correct in my belief that American Soccer players earn less than those
> other 5 sports?
>
> Is it that simple = economics? Do talented athletes and their parents/advisors/entourage
> decide to devote time to sports which offer more money & other benefits, avoiding soccer
> because it pays less and is too hard?
>
> I would have thought that country as large as the US, with resources and
> populations would have statistically very good chances to produce enough top
> athletes at any sport to compete, but apparently not.
>
> Your rebuttal or explanation of how I am completely wrong is eagerly anticipated.
My belief is that it has very little to do with money or even chance of injury. It has to do with popularity. Men and women who want to become professional athletes go into sports they love. For an awful lot of kids, soccer is something your parents make you play when you're little because all the uber-parenting books tell them it's good for building social skills and teamwork. And most of their kids hate it. And none of their friends who aren't there already come to watch. And their parents don't spend all their spare time watching soccer or going to soccer games. They probably watch American-rules football and baseball and basketball. And they take their kids. So what are their kids going to think are the "real" sports? The ones their parents *make* them play or the ones their parents and their siblings and peers actually watch for fun?
How many kids want a career in track and field or archery? Only the ones who *really* love it. Same with soccer. It's a painful paradox: IMO soccer will only become more popular, get more money, and get more athletes in the US choosing it as a career when it, well, gets more popular.
> Even I have noticed that A) the World Cup exists, and B) the US Team has no chance.
I would not say that. No chance of winning the tournament? Yes, but most of the teams in it have no chance of winning. It's almost certainly going to be Brazil, Germany, Italy, Czech, France; possibly Argentina, England, Netherlands, but less likely.
> Why is this country incapable of fielding a competitive team?
It's not. If it weren't competitive, it wouldn't have gotten to the World Cup. There are over 200 national teams around the world. Only 32 get to the World Cup, and they have to play a LOT of matches to get there. We have a good team. Not a great team, but a good team.
> My best answer is that soccer is the sixth choice for the most athletic men in the US.
> Baseball & Golf offer most money with longest career, and least contact/injuries.
> Basketball and American Football offer a lot of money and a lot of prestige/endorsements.
> Hockey, well, American Hockey is almost as good as Canadian or European hockey.
>
> Am I correct in my belief that American Soccer players earn less than those
> other 5 sports?
>
> Is it that simple = economics? Do talented athletes and their parents/advisors/entourage
> decide to devote time to sports which offer more money & other benefits, avoiding soccer
> because it pays less and is too hard?
>
> I would have thought that country as large as the US, with resources and
> populations would have statistically very good chances to produce enough top
> athletes at any sport to compete, but apparently not.
>
> Your rebuttal or explanation of how I am completely wrong is eagerly anticipated.
My belief is that it has very little to do with money or even chance of injury. It has to do with popularity. Men and women who want to become professional athletes go into sports they love. For an awful lot of kids, soccer is something your parents make you play when you're little because all the uber-parenting books tell them it's good for building social skills and teamwork. And most of their kids hate it. And none of their friends who aren't there already come to watch. And their parents don't spend all their spare time watching soccer or going to soccer games. They probably watch American-rules football and baseball and basketball. And they take their kids. So what are their kids going to think are the "real" sports? The ones their parents *make* them play or the ones their parents and their siblings and peers actually watch for fun?
How many kids want a career in track and field or archery? Only the ones who *really* love it. Same with soccer. It's a painful paradox: IMO soccer will only become more popular, get more money, and get more athletes in the US choosing it as a career when it, well, gets more popular.
