Yes. They get money from outside the country because there is money in UEFA broadcasts and that isn't true for the US. But I don't think we need to get to 60% "A" licensed since we have a much bigger pool. I think just need good scouting of all the kids, looking for the dedicated ones. Even things like curated web content of soccer games. Here, kids, watch these games and watch this particular thing that the pros are doing. You have to find a spark and feed the fire. From my experience in other sports (I was never great at soccer, but I was at a high level in other sports) dedication is not enough. But it is something you can't teach and it is required. And when entire teams are dedicated (no pay-to-play, no coach's kid, no talented but indifferent) the development is amazing. Like I said, I am extrapolating from other sports, but I think it would be true for soccer.
Exactly. MLS is at the level of Championship league soccer. It has free or basic-cable-cost local broadcasts. It has a few nationally broadcast games a week. Tickets are cheap. American soccer fans are a bunch of whiners. Premiership-quality league play will cost us NFL-type ticket prices and expensive cable channels. MLS undoubtedly wants to get there, but correctly realizes it is a slow build. You want a lot of money in American soccer? Ultimately it comes from our pockets.
I live in SW Missouri, so not quite the population as California ( to say the least.) But I live in a decent area for soccer. A sporting KC affiliate in NW Arkansas an hour away, another couple decent sized clubs down there or we could go up to Springfield/Joplin an hour away as well. I've noticed on these local clubs that you have your monthly fee. Then they offer a pre-season conditioning camp that cost money (not included in the fee) or a special spring break camp (also not included) or futsal (same thing). To be fair, we took part in Futsal in one of these clubs and it was only $55 for 8 games. No practices, just organized pickup games with the same team every week. Have done 2 seasons--one with a coach from the club, one with a parent. And one also offered a free 3 days skills camp, which we obviously took advantage of. But it just seems the focus is on the money. And I like how local clubs will boast that's it 's about development, not about winning, which is supposedly the focus of rec teams. Why then do you go to so many tournaments? Spare me. I've coached my son's YMCA team in this small town of 4,000 people for many seasons. My son and a couple of teammates who have always been on teams with him have lost 1 game in 18 months. Not because we're that great, but because we are actually organized. So I am taking steps to start a competitive team for a league in the spring. Bunch of small clubs from smaller cities, mostly led by volunteers who know what they're doing. $300/team for the season plus uniforms. Games on Saturdays only. Step up in competition. Trade off? Financial/life balance for probably never getting "discovered" by a scout. I suspect that's the case for 99% of America.
One thing that would be easy would be to take full advantage of the geography of the USA in locating qualifiers. Putting that Costa Rica qualifier in New Jersey helped keep the team from qualifying. Instead of the usual nationwide MLS stadium tour, how about the federation gets serious about location like Ecuador (plays in Quito at 9,500 feet), Bolivia (plays in La Paz at 12,500 feet), and Colombia (plays in the heat of Baranquilla, normally at 2 p.m.), for example. I suggest choosing two primary locations to make the USMNT comfortable, and the other teams most uncomfortable: Anchorage, Alaska (Mexico, Honduras, and any other team with a lot of fan support in the US) Laramie, Wyoming (at the University of Wyoming football stadium - elevation nearly 7,300 feet) (Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Trinidad, etc.) If the US wins all of their home games, they qualify.
@marius good points! The only bad part about playing in Alaska is that more than likely the US won't have support either. Who knows, maybe they do. Other teams take advantage of that, I don't see why the US hasn't. Playing in Central America is tough for everyone specially at how hostile fans are with the visiting team. **Just checked the biggest stadium in Alaska and it's in Anchorage and seats 4,500. The USFF will need a specialized soccer stadium with more seating capacity to host WC qualifiers there. But I doubt the USSF spends money on that.
When it comes to the venues I think we should stick with what worked for us last cycle. For the life of me I don't know why we did not play one game in Kansas or Seattle. Those places give us good pro- USA crowds and we rarely lose in those cities. I don't care about turf issues or West Coast / time zone excuses. We should play in American soccer cities that are crazy for soccer right now. That means we should Play in those cities and prioritize Portland,Orlando, maybe Atlanta, etc.
War Memorial Stadium in Laramie doesn't have a wide enough field to play World Cup qualifiers on. A photo of it shows barely enough room for the benches outside an American football field. For altitude purposes, Denver and Salt Lake City are fine. And Columbus is fine for home support. The problem against Mexico this cycle wasn't the venue, it was Klinsmann's tactical ineptitude. If we want cold, perhaps Minnesota United's new stadium will be useful for winter matches.
Looks wide enough to me, especially since grass would need to be laid down on top (the federation should keep the "7220 Feet" lettering on the grass, just convert it to meters):
A standard football field is 53 1/2 yards wide, minimum for FIFA is 70yds wide. Still looks too narrow. Here is centurylink with football lines.
Yep, not as wide as Centurylink. Looks about the same as the Rose Bowl. Should meet the minimum width with grass laid down.
One obvious problem is that our guys aren't used to altitude either... or playing in the cold of Alaska. This idea only works if you have someplace our players are comfortable and not the other teams, these are just places it would be uncomfortable for both teams.
Agree. We should focus on support at home stadia and having a team that can do the job without having to rely on gimmicks. This team this year SHOULD have been able to do it. The venues are not the reason we didn't qualify. Unfortunately, excuses are for losers and right now we have a lot of excuses.
But the US players would deal with it better than Costa Rica, Panama, etc. And it would be all that the press in their countries would talk about in the lead up. The psychological advantage could be a big factor.
Why don't you try booking a flight to Alaska from Dortmund. Playing on the East Coast is best for our European players. Hopefully, in three years the team is mostly based in Europe. I hate the excuse making and the "play for a draw on the road mentality" that Arena brought back. Ooh, sloppy turf, ooh, too hot, ooh, too many CR fans. B-S. We shouldn't be scared to play anyone anywhere (except Mexico in those states bordering Mexico haha). We don't need Pulisic making three stop flights taking 28 hours back and forth for games. I doubt he will be at his best. One thing that should be looked at is MLS's schedule. It supposedly has hurt MLS teams in the CCL, it does seem to make qualification harder. Games in November are when some MLS guys are already on vacation. Games in March are in pre-season. Especially when you play Mexico, which are mid season at these times. MLS moving to the FIFA calendar would help with a number of USMNT things (like getting our prospects transfers). Plus, if you are willing to play in Alaska and Wyoming in March, October, and November, you can't be too worried about MLS playing in the Lower 48 then.
Wyoming is in the lower 48. In fact, Laramie is not too far from Denver. It is not that hard to get to, actually, just a short flight from Denver.
What's the point? If the team isn't good enough to qualify on it's own merits, why would playing games with the venue make much of a difference? The calculus here assumes a narrow edge in quality, or none at all. If this country can't produce enough talent to easily beat the likes of Costa Rica then holding matches in Laramie, or even Nome won't help.
So, Dortmund to Munich to Denver (or maybe a stop at O'Hare?) to Laramie. And back again. Wyoming also has the biggest temperature extremes in the country because it is farthest from a large body of water. If Minnesota United build a nice stadium, play CR or Mexico there. But where we played our home qualifiers was not the problem.
The point is to give the team every advantage possible. Ecuador has qualified for several World Cups recently. They have had good teams, but their qualification was in large part due to their success in the home games in Quito, at 9,500 feet, even though almost all their players are from the coast, where their largest city, Guayaquil, is located.
Yep, not the only problem, obviously, but it was part of the problem for the Costa Rica game, which ending up being one of the primary reasons for missing the f-ing World Cup. Canada qualified for the World Cup in 1986 by beating Honduras in a tiny stadium in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. You do what you can to give yourself an advantage. Playing in Denver is good, playing in Laramie would be better.
Our fans also don't stay outside the visiting team's hotel and play loud music all night long. Not winning one road match hurt us as much as losing two at home.
I never said that the venues are the reason we did not qualify. But as any good federation knows you have to play in venues that help you the most in qualifying. Every little bit helps and having an intelligent plan when it comes to home scheduling is what we should strive for.