How important is population as a factor in building a World Cup winning side?

If either of the first two proposals were to be valid points in the making of a great soccer power on could say that Brazil as well as the Netherlands would be perennial champions.

It is a complex question and neither of the first two are a guarantee of success.

If popultion were the main criteria then nether Brazil, the USA or any population dense nation would have an excuse for not being a world power.

If merely training and scouting were the important factor then any country with highly developed soccer infrastructure would continually contribute championships.

It truly is a multiplicity of factors that contribute to continual soccer excellence.

Of course a population pool of significant size can produce a better selection of top athletes. Training, scouting and the general Soccer infrastructure can take these athletes and make them excellent soccer players.
There is however, a huge missing link in all these theses.
That of course is the human factor. If we take the erstwhile Soviet example, all the population and training scouting and infrastructure necessities for continued success in Soccer were satisfied in spades but for some reason success never really happened. While perhaps mechanically correct and very clinical there never was any flair, any true desire or heart to win consistently. Perhaps soccer was not as important to the soviets but certainly the proletariat certainly threw lots of Rubles in that sport's direction and no truly dominent or beautifully playing teams ever evolved. While they enjoyed some success no big titles ever rolled their way.

I am afraid that it takes more than money to make a great soccer team, to build a team that can win consistently.

I also do not feel that a "rich" country like the US will ever be consistent in the sport simple because it is a white collar sport here in the US. While that sounds somewhat lowbrow, it is a fact that team sports and even sports in general, that the US is losing it's dominence. Even in sports originally only played and or developed in the US. Picture Basketball in the Olympics, Volleyball, Baseball as well and the list of lost dominence goes well into individual events, see tennis and alll sports not involving the glamour sports such as sprinting, skiing (after many many years we see some successes in skiing but still now continual world dominance). Perhaps the pendulum will swing back as other forms of recreation become too expensive to partake of the arc will swing back to sports being a participation venue and not just a form of voyeurism. To get good in something one must participate. It is juust as simple as that.
It does little good to sit here on a forum and say what will do it. What is necessary is to go out there and do it and that at a very early age with a promise that perhaps it just may be a means to make a decent livelyhood.
In the US, as it sits currenty, unless you go to college you'll never be on a world cup team. Ask yourself a question, how many players, good players ever attended college say in Brasil, in Africa and on and on......Soccer very often relies on instinct and being a professor of philosphy is not that helpful.
I am educated a bit myself so I am not trying to diss education, it should definitely be a priority to educate first and play soccer at the same time.
In the end it is important that soccer gets recognized as a legitimate sport with the promise of a future within it. Currently it is 6 to 12 or so and so long soccer, now we play football or basketball or anything but soccer cause there ain't no future in soccer......It's getting better but only marginally.

A very simplified and I am certain a myopic outlook cause the underlying problems are so much deeper than this simple sctratch on the surface.

 

There's another thread with a few posts on this subject here.

One thing I would say is that what matters is not the total population of a country, but rather the population which is within the range of getting good training. It is obvious that training and scouting are extremely important, otherwise the Netherlands, Portugal, and other strong nations wouldn't have a chance. If a country is large but only a small part of their population actually has the opportunity to recieve good training, the large population doesn't matter. Russia is an example of this. There are a few big clubs in Moscow and a few more in other cities who have real youth development programs with good training. But most of Russia's population is nowhere near these clubs, and inevitably many good players don't get the chance. What does it matter if a country has 180 Million people if only 20 Million are really within the range of good training? In Brazil there is good training nationwide, so they take advantage of their population.

 

i dont think it matters much, it just comes down to the right development for kids. look at a country like australia in the olympics, way less athletes than alot of the top countrys but they are always up there in the medal count

 

Sorry to burst your bubble gejal, but if your idea that the US is slipping in individual sports was valid, then why does the US continue to dominate the Tour de France?

 

Population * % of pop that goes to that sport

+ financial infrastructure to cultivate and identify talent

+ nutrition and health of the country

+ athletic capacity of the population

Population is the single largest factor by an immense amount.

Take Holland, Argentina, or France and triple their size and they would be amazing powerhouses instead of teams that are often good.

The US has a divided population as far as sports go, but who knows what will happen with China and India who have the population to be great and may eventually catch up in the other factors.

 

Well said. Look at who has actually won the World Cup in modern times, generally big countries:

Brazil
Argentina
Italy
France
Germany
England (if you want to go back 40 years)

These are countries with a lot of well-fed people.

 

Italy doesnt have a huge population, but in football crazy countries like Brazil, where everyone of the Millions wants to play, its easier than the probably 30,000 men that say T&T could have had

 

It looks like everyone that has mentioned population has focused on the up side. What about a floor where if your population is below that, you have virtually no chance? For example, a Trinidad and Tobago can make a run to get into the WC finals, but will they ever be able to make a deep run or even a run for that matter in the World Cup finals? No matter how much training you have in your country, at some level you just don't have enough people to pull a highly talented team from.

 

There are probably a million factors that go into making a soccer powerhouse but there`s a few in particular that stand out...

1) Size

Although there are some exceptions, the countries with the largest populations tend to dominate their continents. Mexico and US for CONCACAF, Brazil and Argentina for South America, Germany(before) for Europe, Nigeria for Africa, and Australia for Oceana. If Ecuador, Colombia or Uruguay had Brazil`s population, Costa Rica, Honduras or Jamaica had that of the US, Cameroon or Morrocco had Nigeria`s, Holland had Germany`s, or Solomon Islands and New Zealand had Austrailias I`m sure things would probably be switched around alot.

2) Natural Talent and athletic ability

Some countries are huge and still just can`t seem to get the job done. The Soviets had all the resources and only managed to win one Euro championship, with the bulk if the talent always comming from the smaller block countries, Ukraine in particular, ironically their poorest country. Russia is completely off the radar now while the Ukraine reached the quarterfinals. Mexico, while having very talented players, often struggles against countries that are bigger and stronger even if not nearly as skilled(US), or players with equal skill that are just faster(Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama). Their main problem is probably just not sending their best talent to Europe, but that`s for another thread. Uruguay, despite having only 3 million people won 2 World Cups and was a World power for decades, no other country in the world its size achieved what they did. Cameroon is still Africa`s class and has the continent`s best player(Eto`o) even though Nigeria has more than 10 times the amount of people. Holland and France are the Brazil and Argentina of Europe, even though Holland is one of the smaller nations. Both of them produce more skilled players than anywhere else in Europe besides Portugal.

3)Organization, Tactics and Discipline
This is what got Germany to more finals than any other country, and what won the cup for Italy(besides some of the dirtiness). It is also why many nations that should be world powers with the amount of class players they have consistently underachieve(Nigeria). The Africans(other than Morrocco, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Tunisia the traditional powers) are essentially the same, world class players with disorganized teams until a coach comes around every four years to wip them into shape and take them to the quarterfinals. When they finally organize themselves, they will propbably pass most of Europe and everyone else and join the Brazilians as world powers, although that`s still a ways off. Korea is Asia`s power because of their organization and fitness, even though other countries arguably have better players(Japan, Saudi Arabia). With all of Saudi Arabia`s skill(the only country ever to have matched matched Maradona`s 86 goal in 94) they haven`t achieved anything in the World Cup other than their beginner`s luck experience in the USA 12 years ago. Although Brazil probably has a little more talent, Argentina has kept up with them and ahead of the rest of South America throughout the years because of being able to combine skill, tactics, organization and discipline to make the superteam they have. While Costa Rica and Honduras are loaded with skill and still send loads of players to Europe, Mexico and America`s discipline keep them ahead of the bunch. If Panama, Trinidad, Jamaica, Haiti and Even St. Vincent could get their acts together the CONCACAF could be turned upside down.

There are probably tons of other factors that can make or break a team(India being the second largest country but the FA being hopelessly currupt, the US having 16 million registered players but none of them comming from tough working-class backrounds like the rest of the world, Germany producing tons of talent in the early seventies but eliminating street soccer, with most of the talent too, Bangladesh being soccer-mad but too poor, Venezuela being the only South American country not to qualify for the cup because Baseball and Basketball are more popular, etc.), but any country that has these three things is probably assured of a World Cup birth every four years.

 

Because people in most countries cant afford or have no interest in biking, thats why

 

I agree. That's why the correct answer (IMHO of course) is the first option. Population is indeed VERY important.

 

Approx 58 million which is not small either.

Someone with more tech skills than me should simply do an x and y axis chart with

world populations: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl

and

the FIFA rankings: http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,108551,00.html?articleid=108551

By the way, I'm not trying to defend the FIFA rankings but for the purposes of this discussion they are a good proxy.

 

I seem to remember reading an article in ESPN the magazine about how India has the largest population and has produces no signifficant athletes at any of the sports it plays. Don't mean to rustle anyones feathers.

Look at Sweden, and Finland in hockey. New Zealand at rugby. Dominican Republic at Baseball. Jamaica at Bobsled...

Its all about scouting and training. ANd the few exceptions, like Brazil, isn't because of the population, its because that sport is embeded into its culture, like Canada for hockey, if kids aren't in a rink they are on the pond.

USA doesn't beat people because it has 250+ million people, it has the best facilities for any and every sport that it wants to compete it. Just like certain countries do.

 

For specific sports I meant to add.

 

Cycling is a European sport. The Europeans should dominate it, not Americans.

 

You are here.





















































The truth is here .

 

Well, mr.bojangles,
I do not have a bubble that needs bursting, I do howver see the facts that American Teams no longer dominate like they used to.
The American Game of Basketball has fielded Dream Teams since pros were allowed into the Olympics. Question? did they win the last Olympics, the ones before????
The American Game of Baseball has not been winning the World Championships nor have they dominated the Olympics?
Tennis, traditionally a rather highbrow sport, (not derogatory, seems it takes lots of money to excel thus the reference) has not featured an American Number 1 for many years, excepting a lady or two. Very few Grand Slam events are being won by Americans.
All but the glamor events in the Sprints seem to be falling to non Americans in general.
It is a fact that world athletics are rapidly equalizing performances with little or at least hotly contested dominance shown by the USA.
You mention Cycling, but other than the Le Tour where have Americans dominated? As far a cycling being a European Sport, I would sort of say that cycling is universal, just less so in the US and the domination appears to be limited to extremely determined and resolute INDIVIDUALS. Just a question, how many Americans were in the top ten at the Tour??? The Phonak team was not entirely American, now was it..
It was a simple observation, an opinion, if you choose to disagree, great. It is the US and we can freely see things differently I just based my observation on what I see happening in sports in general. Therefore, if you consider my bubble BURST, it is A-OK.
What I was trying to get across is that population is not at all an empowering reason for continued success in sports since the dynamis of that poulation are very important. If 90% of the population is just having to struggle just to survive from day to day, how could they concentrate on a sport and conversely if you have a population with loads of free time (in other words not having to struggle on day to day survival) does it not stand to reason that they will gravitate towards a sport to fill that free time.
Again that's just a general observation, and the dynamics for continued excellence of course delve somewhat deeper.
Thanks, I do now consider myself as having a burst bubble.

PS, I did cheer for the US Soccer Team, in person at all three venues in Germany, pulled for Mr. Landis on the TOUR and in general support all American teams over the years. However I am also a realist. The rest of the world is catching up and even ..........
I can see an eventual athletic leveling of world sports, where on any given day, any team can beat any other team, regardless of from where it hails.....As it should be.....

 

Then enlighten me. Show me the error of my ways. Is suppose I overlooked the great Tour of California and the Tour of Georgia.

 

I would change the word "population" to raw material. Not just how many people do we have or even how many we have playing the sport, but how many do we have dedicated to the sport. How many are living the sport. That's what gives raw material. How big of a lump of clay does the potter have to work with.

Despite the affore mentioned fact that we haven't exactly excelled in recent years in international basketball tournaments, we are still the best country in the world at the sport. Why? Because people play. A lot. A whole lot. Drive through the city and see how many baskets are not in use at any given time . Not many. Drive through a state like Indiana and see how many farm houses have a basket hanging in the back. Most. The courts at the park near my house are always busy. If we had a national team that didn't have an attitude AND if the international rules were the same as we are accustomed to in the NCAA and the NBA, no one would come close to us.

We don't dominate internationally in baseball because young boys in countries like the Domincan Republic do nothing but play and dream of making the Major Leagues one day.

The park that I mentioned that is near my house also has two soccer fields. During the spring and the fall they are hopping with youth league practices and games. Kids probably from about age 6 to age 14. However, those same fields never get any use outside of organized play. I never see a kid out there by himself shooting or dribbling. I never see a group of kids just playing a pick up game like I do at the nearby basketball court.

That's why the US is yet to be a power in soccer. Raw material. The kids play in leagues with their uniforms and everyone gets a trophy just for being on the team. (Nobody except the MVP got trophies when I was a kid.) But there are so few who have the passion, who live it. Until kids from 3 and 4 year olds through high scholl jus play the game on their own for no other reason than because they love the sport, we will just turn out highly trained, "well nutritioned" soccer players who are only that instead of players who live and would die for the sport. We need some Pete Marivich types who don't go anywhere without a ball at their feet, like Pete always did with a basketball. Then, when we have amassed raw material, we can use our facilities and training technics and nutrition knowledge and all that other good stuff and produce a natioanl team that is a world power.

 

can someone tell me why india are not so successful at any other sport than criket? don't say soccer is not popoular there, cuz the calcutta derby draws more people than the madrid derby!

 

it depends. look at brazil and mexico. many people and talented team. but then we have india, china, and the US. not so good. It really depends on the type of training and the value in importance in the country.

 

All of these events have happened very recently. Just because England didnt qualify for World Cup '94 apparently didnt mean they werent a world soccer power any longer. Youre just looking at a time when we fielded a 4th string dream team, lost serena and venus, lost lance armstrong, and tiger woods has lost himself. Already, one of these legends has been replaced and the baseball team is being replaced by our soccer team. Americans will always win more then our fair share.

 

The Tour de France is actually a team sport. Without the domestiques doing their part, these days no Team Leader would win the Tour.

And if you are citing Floyd Landis as an example of sporting success!

Bad news, mate check this link!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/5221122.stm

 

Good points. But a rich country can certainly compete at football. Germany, Italy, France, England and Spain are hardly poor countries are they?

Also the Soviets DID actually produce extremely good teams.

They have a VERY good record in European Championships.

'The Soviet Union failed to qualify for the World Cup only once, in 1978, and attended seven finals tournaments in total. Their best finish was fourth in 1966, when they lost to West Germany in the semifinals, 2-1. The USSR qualified for seven European Championships, winning the inaugural competition in 1960 when they beat Yugoslavia in the final, 2-1. They finished second three times (1964, 1972, 1988), and fourth once (1968), when, having drawn with Italy in the semi-final, they were sent to the third place playoff match by the loss of a coin toss. The Soviet Union also won the gold medal in the 1956 and 1988 Summer Olympics, the inaugural World Youth Championship in 1977, and the Under-16 World Championship in 1987.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_national_football_team

Since the USSR team was replaced by the Russian team they have been much less successful. This is due to the fact that non-communist Russia does not really have the investment for football that the communists did. The Oligarchs and Corporations may buck this trend in specific cases but overall the investment situation in grassroots football seems to have worsened. And of course the Soviet team could draw from populations pools that the current Russian side cannot.

So perhaps the Soviet Union example is a good example to show that both investment in infrastructure, scouting, training and facilities AND population pool are factors in generating successful football teams.