Ethnic diversity on the MNT

What makes you think soccer is the most popular sport among Latinos?

 

I never understood how soccer got tagged with the "middle-class sport for suburban white kids" label.[/QUOTE]
Because pros/semi-pros probably were from white middle-class backgrounds until the late 2000's. From what I understand most academies were based in the suburbs and were pay to play.

 

Its pretty funny (i like comedy rather than the alternative)...this kind of thing is a revelation to many because we so willingly fall prey to the instinct to classify each other by skin color rather than ethnicity.

 

Because pros/semi-pros probably were from white middle-class backgrounds until the late 2000's. From what I understand most academies were based in the suburbs and were pay to play.[/QUOTE]

There was no such thing as an academy.

Club teams in my part of the country were pretty much representative of the diversity ratios you found in the area.

 

I just think the sporting infrastructure is MORE important. Because there are lots of kids who love soccer, but you can't succeed if you're in a country without any soccer infrastructure (e.g Cote d'Ivorie, Ghana, India, etc.). If you're in a country with good soccer infrastructure, you just need a few people that are dedicated and willing to take advantage of that infrastructure.

 

There was no such thing as an academy..[/QUOTE]

My cousin coached at one in the early 90s.

 

Basically you need both. Great culture and little infrastructure you get countries like Cameroon who have produced great players but not a lot of international success.
Great infrastructure and little culture you get the U.S who can compete but doesn't produce world class players. Both culture and infrastructure you get countries like Germany. France, Spain...
Culture does not create athletes but it drives a child to pick up a ball and start dribbling in their driveway or practicing their first touch by kicking it back and forth against a wall. Infrastructure provides that same child with proper coaching.

Gymnastics is different because it's not the team sport soccer is and you need money to put your child in those classes.

 

I don't think we have very good soccer infrastructure. We have pay-to-play, large gaps in scouting, and poor coaching.

Countries like Cameroon have created great players by sending them to countries with good soccer infrastructure. Same story with CI, Ghana, etc.

Let's take Messi. He starts playing because of a soccer culture. He wants to play soccer, as opposed to idolizing, I don't know, Manu Ginobli, and going to basketball. He uses Argentina's soccer infrastructure, which identifies him as a talent worth developing, and places him in the academy of Newell's Old Boys. Then, he gets even better training at La Masia, which trains him like a professional, from 7 years old on. Most of that development comes from the soccer infrastructure.

 

My cousin coached at one in the early 90s.[/QUOTE]

Thats great, but for the most part soccer in the US during that period was a bunch of small clubs funneled into an Olympic Developmental program that funneled into the national teams.

 

I disagree. I think its the culture that matters more than the infrastructure. How can you know what a great player looks like when you dont see them? How can you know tactics if you dont have real examples? How can you be subconsciously saturated with the subtleties of the gane when you just see it through the eyes of your peers at the club level instead of watching the greats go at it for years on years.

The culture is the difference. Its what teaches the game and what creates a love for it in the hearts of the future greats. Every kid on a basketball court when i grew up wanted to be Michael Jordan and imitated him the best they could. Once the American kid swaps Jordan for Messi we're getting somewhere, and that has been happening for years now. The culture change is happening.

 

Surely both is important, but I also think culture is about 65% and infrastructure 35%. Simply - if there is no culture, you won't dream of becoming soccer superstar as a kid, you won't be able to observe these superstars and the way they play every day; if there is no culture you won't spent 3 hours every day as a kid playing the game with your mates. Only once the culture is in place, the facilities, fields, coaches, technology, medicine etc. will help you to fine tune your game to the level where you can be one of the best in the world. Without culture, you can become solid, but only to a point where your game will lack passion and creativity to get you even higher. Simply, you may still be a good professional, but you won't have so called "artists" of the game to push you above other teams.

If US wants to become a true competitor for WC (and not only what it is now, that is a "solid" NT, like about 40 other sides or so), the football culture must grow (some people from around the world laugh, that as long as you call it "soccer" you wont improve any more). This means kids skipping school to watch EL games (yes - this is where you learn what European GAME IS ACTUALLY ABOUT), go to MLS games and organise fan life about their clubs, discuss soccer events from around the world with their peers and parents during family lunches, be able to play at their local community club without paying $250 entry fee, only then you will have the base, which actually will be able to use all the infrastructure, and be aware of what football is like around the world, from CONCAF to UEFA (others included). Only than you can dream of truly becoming top 10 in the World (even Italy and England aren't top 10 now), and become a successful favorite to actually win WC. This, since other countries to not stand in place, but also develop their infrastructure, and have about 100 years head start in culture, is a very difficult task. However, as I indicated in many posts, I believe US is on the good path, and clearly moves in the right direction.

And now final point: you must stop this "ethnicity" nonsense. Generally, if NTs start divide themselves along so called "ethnic" lines, they do not tend to do well. Look at Spain, or Belgium of the past - only once they started to put their "ethnic" divisions (Castellan vs Catalan vs Bask, Wallon vs Vlams vs Colonial) behind them (yes, I am aware these still exist within these teams, but not to the point they have been dividing them 20 or more years ago), they started to improve. In my eyes, Spanish team started feeling finally more as united team representing their country, and so did Belgium, and this is why they have been able to utilize their talent and play as a team and therefore do better. Therefore, all players must feel like they are representing the United States, like they are all equal Americans, and be willing to play as a team without thinking among the lines "he is a gringo I won't pass to him". Therefore, strengthening "ethnic" divisions, instead of uniting people along something they have in common, is not the way to go for USMNT.

 

How do you explain dominance in the Women's game? The US dominates in Women's hockey, soccer, tennis, and basketball. None of those sports are in the consciousness of the average American, of either gender. But, because we have a sporting infrastructure in those sports, they don't have to be dominant sports in our culture to produce great athletes.

And before you come back with the Chastain goal vs. China, girls nowadays aren't professional soccer players because of a grainy 90's PK. They're professional players because the USSF has set up a development system, while the rest of the world is far behind. Argentina has a great soccer culture, but the WNT is barely amateur level. Because there is no sporting infrastructure. Same with Mexico, Costa Rica, etc.

The Women's Olympic teams are all exceptional. I believe that the US sent the most female athletes to a single Summer Olympic games ever by one nation. Why? Because the college sporting infrastructure breeds very good women's athletes.

 

I found this when talking about culture:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/is-this-a-coaching-situation.2051253/

 

Girls are not comparable - simply, girls doing sports professionally are not something as obvious outside of US, and in many countries are even discouraged from competing - this is one. In soccer especially, it is exactly other way in the US: here girls have about 30 years advantage of "soccer" culture since American colleges brought the game to women earlier, than European girls were even thinking they could play. Football is still regarded as mainly male thing in Europe and SA, and about 20 years ago women were not even thinking or imagine themselves playing it - this is two. There were other sports which were assumed to be more feminine and more acceptable for girls to play (in Poland light athletics, volleyball, combat sports, esp. Judo, in Russia/Bulgaria/Romania Gymnastics, in Russia figure skating etc.).

Yes, collages breed athletes, but in Europe no girls or guys go to university or college to play sports - they go there to become doctors, engineers, scientists or teachers, and they play sport in ADDITION to their studies, not as a reason to study. For example, in Poland we have some sports which are regarded as "academic" (that is academics play them keenly in addition to their studies) - these are volleyball (second sport in Poland after Football) and Rugby (typical popular amateur sports among boys and girls in Poland yet it is mainly amateur). It is obviously changing here as well (and money which pro sports start to provide, also for women, is the reason), but in women's soccer it is US that exactly has culture advantage over the rest.

 

As an American, let me ask you, what were the things you were thinking about the most being 10 to 20 years old (I am not talking girls)?

 

Womens sports are not comparable in any way.

 

I explained above how so.

 

Well you can start with the reality of the way the world is. Many women around the world are subjugated. The US is one of the nations where women can actually make a choice to play a sport for many years. Thats aside from the culture side of it. Sports are an extremely miniscule subculture among women of the world. Sports is not the place where women work out their broader social hierarchy when they are growing up.

 

Then how is it that in the same country with the same infrastructure the U.S women are so much more dominant but the Men's team isn't. Because the culture in this country has benefited women's soccer more than men's, for decades it was considered a girly sport. And the culture in other countries is that women shouldn't play sports because "that's for men".

 

US women basketball and ice hockey teams are among best in the world... They are almost as dominant as women's soccer team. In hockey only Canada is better, really.

 

I wouldn't say our women are more dominant at soccer than basketball. Women's basketball has won 6 straight gold medals in basketball, Women's soccer has more opportunities with the world cup and olympics.