Not as many different cultures and nationalities in China.
USA is filled with a diverse group of people white black hispanic. Lots of supreme athletes in the country.
How dominant USA would be in comparison to Brazil, France or Spain if their main sport is football?
- Thread starter deafepl
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
USA is filled with a diverse group of people white black hispanic. Lots of supreme athletes in the country.
On the GDP thing regarding places like India and China, I'd have thought these kinds of measures might be more important than overall gross domestic product for the country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Then there are things like the human development index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Then there are things like the human development index.
Those people were a little to excited then. It takes a while and will take a while especially since it is not the main Sport in the country. In the future I would not be surprised if USA was a competitive nation while having "soccer" as its third most popular sport which would be insane.
Tell me about China's extensive footballing infrastructure historically.
Bit of a pointless question. Football culture is what makes a country great, see the Netherlands as a prime example. Asking "if the USA had a different culture, what wpuld be?" is like asking "how good would the USA be if the USA wasn't the USA but Brazil?"
This makes no goddamned sense and you know it.
If there is a shit-ton of money then a homogeneous population shouldn't be a problem. Unless you're saying that Chinese people just don't have the qualities to play the sport.
Think GDP per capita is the indicator, not GDP overall.
I don't think they will because of how US youth sport is organized, while EU/LA countries have kids being professional from 10 years old in the US they still play in schools and stuff.
Also the way US cities are built isn't really helpful for playing in a park or something like that.
And that is without considering football having to compete with other sports while in most countries that play football it's almost the only play football.
Also the way US cities are built isn't really helpful for playing in a park or something like that.
And that is without considering football having to compete with other sports while in most countries that play football it's almost the only play football.
How many very talented Chinese people do you have in the most popular sports in the world? Its different. Like I said USA would have Latin-American European-American people etc to choose from. The talent pool would be extensive.
Of course there's a correlation. Population isn't a perfect predictor, and there are several other factors also in play, but it's nonsense to say there's no correlation.
They've been saying it for decades. It was being said when Pele signed for the New York Cosmos in 1975.
American who lived in China for 5 years chiming in here.
China does not have much of a football culture to speak of. When you walk through their cities, you'll see plenty of basketball courts, but no soccer fields. They also don't have quality coaches to develop the players who are serious about the sport.
Football is unique from a lot of sports in that an individual needs to start playing at a very young age, and receive quality coaching during their development to reach the top of the sport. The populations of China and the US mean very little without that.
I'm from North Carolina, where basketball is king. Kinston, a small town in the eastern part of the state, has produced several NBA players because kids grow up playing the sport, and even their parents or youth team coaches know enough about the game to teach them solid fundamentals when they start playing. It's not a coincidence that many American stars (Pulisic, Bradley, etc) have parents who coach the game. Without that, it's very difficult to succeed.
To answer the original question, I think the US would be the best, but I don't think it would dominate, as football isnt a sport where it's easy to win consistently. They would be going deep in the world cup every 4 years, though. I think they would win 1 out of every 3 or 4 world cups.
The thing with American sports is that we have so many good athletes who go into basketball or American football, and even play at the college level, but don't make it in the top leagues. European basketball leagues are littered with American stars who couldn't make it in the NBA. If all of those kids were funneled into football and given proper coaching, plenty could become stars. Guys like Lebron James and Russell Westbrook might not have led the US to world cup glory, but it couldve been the guy who got a scholarship to college and nothing beyond that, but is still every bit the athlete that Christian Pulisic is.
The MLS was created in conjunction with, and as a direct result of WC ‘94. It’s certainly not the Premier League, La Liga or the Bundesliga, but that was hardly a realistic expectation. Many questioned if it would even be viable financially and fold. The fact it still exists is a triumph. Many feel the quality of the league has improved modestly over time, although I’m no mood to debate the “MLS is crap” crowd.
Another massive effect of WC ‘94 was that it was a major factor in opening up the American market to international football broadcasting. From a broadcasting perspective there was a time after WC 94 when the Premier League was second to NASCAR in terms of gaining broadcasting market share (not sure about today) as some of the traditional sports, men’s baseball and basketball, in particular were contracting in viewership (I think the NBA picked up, baseball still has issues).
Since it’s a United forum and to put it in perspective. Pre WC 94, the premier league TV contract from the US was basically negligible. Today, it’s one of the most lucrative outside the UK. In fact, the US might even be the #1 most lucrative TV contract outside of the British Isles.
I think they'd be incredible at rugby if it were their main sport
Nobody knows is the real answer, so who cares? They're shit and that's the reality.
Women's game proves nothing. The rest of the world doesn't take the women's game anywhere near as seriously/doesn't invest a fraction of the amount the U.S does so they have a huge advantage.
In football, you have lots of major countries who take it very seriously/have very wealthy leagues .. etc, etc.
Women's game proves nothing. The rest of the world doesn't take the women's game anywhere near as seriously/doesn't invest a fraction of the amount the U.S does so they have a huge advantage.
In football, you have lots of major countries who take it very seriously/have very wealthy leagues .. etc, etc.
They're doing things the right way by concentrating on building up their league, step by step over decades. But, no matter what they do, football will never be in the DNA of American sports fans the way American football or Baseball (fantastic sport) is.
The popularity of their league has grown a lot, but the quality of the national team remains pretty modest.
You contradict yourself here. This is precisely why the world is so far ahead of us in football. The rest of the world cares about football way more than we do. Although I'm hopeful this is changing with more and more Americans following the PL, La Liga, CL, etc. Funny enough, I think FIFA (video game) can help with this. Imagine if we had "La Masias" in major cities and kids played year-round. Given time, surely we could compete with the best? With our resources, population, and sports mad culture, I don't think there's any doubt that we'd become a world power in football if that was our main sport.
It's 2018 now and I think Bangladesh and Nigeria have switched places, but there's some interesting countries out there with a massive potential talent pool that aren't settled names in football yet. The USA could of course be one of the most dominant countries if they really made it their main national sport, but that's not realistic.
The real beauty about football is also that ultimately you can only start with 11 players. Even a country like China could have 50 or 60 elite level players available at one time, but if a smaller country's best 11 is marginally better it doesn't matter how much in dept quality the bigger country have. On top of that there's also large variance in knock-out tournament football so smaller countries would always have a chance.
I think I've read somewhere recently about the negative correlation. Young kids from richer countries have lots of options and even if they like football are unlikely to be as invested in it as a kid from a poorer country, for whom it is the only (or one of the very few) way to success.
You're so weird.
I hate to break it to you...
You'd have to factor in the unique collegiate athletic system in the US - how would that compete alongside the football academies that are traditional in Europe? Not to mention the North American system of professional sports that the collegiate programs feed into - no relegation, salary caps etc.
Oooh kay, so at least the MLS still exists. And the rest looks more like a triumph of the FA and English football, just saying.
2019 is nothing but an illusion, trust me
Not a chance in hell. France themselves could probably field 10 Xi's that would trounce the current USA team. Just isn't enough interested in the youths compared to the other sports for great talents to emerge.
I think "douchey" would be a perfect way to describe it. But mate, this site has really worn you down if that's what you equate the op to.
As others have mentioned - Russia, China, India aren't that great, although they'll have nowhere near the infrastructure available to them that the USA has/could have.
Think it'll take the USA longer than 15 years to get up there personally but I'd expect their international side to improve as football gets more popular there (or as we see more youngsters reacting to the popularity it already now has).
Think it'll take the USA longer than 15 years to get up there personally but I'd expect their international side to improve as football gets more popular there (or as we see more youngsters reacting to the popularity it already now has).
What the TV exposure really means for the US overall is that increases visibility and creates fans for the top level of the sport. I.E. little kids see Ronaldo, Messi, etc and want to play the sport and excel in it. That was sorely lacking before WC 94.
[Now to be fair, the increasing interest in football in the US cannot be solely attributed to WC 94. The US qualifying for 90 had an effect, the establishment of the Premier League had an effect, and the the next phase of satellite/cable broadcasting, the internet and the video game boom for FIFA, as well as the demand from expats for European, South American and Mexican football. WC 94 was a catalyst]
And finally, yes, actually creating a new league (when none existed before) that still exists is kind of a big deal!!! Especially when many predicted it would fail. Over the years, many of these teams have evolved from co-sharing stadiums with NFL teams to building their own stadiums. Nobody expected the US men’s team to win a World Cup, but the US men’s team qualified and was competitive in quite a few competitions since 94. They’re poor right now, but football is rather cyclical as well.
Last edited:
Remember when USSR dominated football because they had a big population and football was their main sport? ohh wait...
I take that to mean the interest would trickle down to the youth level as well.
Never been quite sure. So many things here though.
The money is so ridiculous for our sports that the incentive to try to become a pro soccer player just doesn't match the other sports. Kids here see very average basketball players getting 150 million dollars as a contract. Average baseball players getting 75 mil. Hockey still pays more than the MLS. Right or wrong. And obviously American football is king.
The money convo just leads to so many things. And it starts when the kids start. This year, I have to pay almost 3000 dollars for my daughter and son to play for their teams.
Also, the structure. American has never struggled to find some super athletic players. But the world is just so much better technically. I always chuckle at these youth programs gloating about what techniques they're about to teach the kids that they've barrowed from Ajax, or Leverkusen, or Benfica, or my daughters old team, which proudly advertised their partnership with Swansea. Hahaha feckin hell.
Throw in as well.... the desire of many, to get their kids college education paid for through athletics. Free college is so key, and the college game has for years just stunted the growth of so many kids. It's not the next step needed for the boys. Girls seems to be working just fine obviously. But the men are getting left in the dust when devote 3-4 years of their soccer maturing when other countries are setting those same 18-21 year olds to pro clubs.
Also, and lastly. The worst neighborhoods still not embracing soccer leads to missing out of a crazy amount of talent not ever touching a soccer ball.
Damn that was long
The money is so ridiculous for our sports that the incentive to try to become a pro soccer player just doesn't match the other sports. Kids here see very average basketball players getting 150 million dollars as a contract. Average baseball players getting 75 mil. Hockey still pays more than the MLS. Right or wrong. And obviously American football is king.
The money convo just leads to so many things. And it starts when the kids start. This year, I have to pay almost 3000 dollars for my daughter and son to play for their teams.
Also, the structure. American has never struggled to find some super athletic players. But the world is just so much better technically. I always chuckle at these youth programs gloating about what techniques they're about to teach the kids that they've barrowed from Ajax, or Leverkusen, or Benfica, or my daughters old team, which proudly advertised their partnership with Swansea. Hahaha feckin hell.
Throw in as well.... the desire of many, to get their kids college education paid for through athletics. Free college is so key, and the college game has for years just stunted the growth of so many kids. It's not the next step needed for the boys. Girls seems to be working just fine obviously. But the men are getting left in the dust when devote 3-4 years of their soccer maturing when other countries are setting those same 18-21 year olds to pro clubs.
Also, and lastly. The worst neighborhoods still not embracing soccer leads to missing out of a crazy amount of talent not ever touching a soccer ball.
Damn that was long
Yeah, and ehem, doping.
Oh if responding to the OP question absolutely yeah, I thought the person I was replying to meant the USA would be up there in 10-15 years as things currently are.
They’d be completely dominant.
They produce far better and more athletes than the best footballing nations. With some top class coaching infrastructure they’d dominate.
They produce far better and more athletes than the best footballing nations. With some top class coaching infrastructure they’d dominate.
Climate doesn't help, neither did their economy/infrastructure.
Maybe after decades of football culture they'd be competitive.
I don't expect them to ever be great at football. Which is kinda nice.
I don't expect them to ever be great at football. Which is kinda nice.
Nevermind, didn't see who you were replying to. Yah, there's no way in hell the US will be there in 10-15 years given the way things stand currently.
Well, they would be Brazil
which is also the answer to this threadAlso i take exception to the premise. We've produced far more top players than Spain over the last few decades
. More than France, too No country would be completely dominant at football. There’s too much competition for that to happen.
Having great athletes doesn’t mean much in this sport. Athletically guys like Iniesta and David Silva are terrible but they’re great players.