While that is true to some extent, it probably also has an awful lot to do with the demographics. Soccer is largely popular with the younger age groups and they don't get the LA Times delivered. I know the Times is attempting to increase it's online footprint but I don't know what the demographics of online readers is. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is skewed toward the older age groups also.
I wouldn't take anything seriously that Bruce Arena says. To me, he has lost all credibility as a coach and commentator on American soccer's health.
Why? The only reason I can think of to support an American league, just for the sake of it, is if it had largely American players. The league has clearly stated that developing players for the NT is not a priority. Most fans on this board say that it shouldn't be. So, why should I give a damn about MLS? I'd like to tune in, to watch an up and coming American here and there, but here's the other thing. It's easier for me to watch Yedlin at Newcastle than to follow any U.S. player in MLS. 90% of the time I see a match I'd like to record on the DVR, it says "channel not available." I've got to pay to watch the domestic league, but I can catch just about any PL league for free? Why the heck would you say I've got some obligation to support suMLS?
I listen to the BBC a lot. England fan's goals are generally "get out of the group." They would be pretty elated. It's amazing to me how they start off with "well, obviously, we can't win."
Brazil absolutely collapsed; Germany (as good as they were) were not 6 goals better than them. Either way, what I mean is, Spain was at the top and dominant for a longer period, from 2008 - 2013, roughly. In that time, they won back-to-back Euros (unprecedented), a World Cup and appeared in a Confed Cup Final. A loss to the US in the '09 Confed Cup, ironically, is the only thing that interrupted this period of dominance. Over that time, Spanish clubs won 3 out of 6 Champions League titles and have dominated it since (goes for Europa league as well). Germany won a WC, but did not make the final of either the 2012 or 2016 Euros, although they did win the Confed Cup most recently. Also, over the same period since 2014, the Bundesliga quality has dropped significantly since Dortmund and Bayern appeared in the final together in 2013; no German team (where the NT gets most of its players) has made it to a final since and Bayern is the only German team that progressed past the groups last season. Having said that, I doubt Germany will flop as badly as Spain did in 2014 and still are considered favorites.
Because most college teams have a ton of alumni who alread have a connection to the school? Even with that college basketball rating suck until March Madness.
I think college basketball is mostly watched by old, slow guys because it looks more like the game they remember playing. They can relate a lot more to the plethora of close-to-normal-sized white guys who can still get a game at college level.
Interesting, but I'd suggest this is a lessor factor compared to school allegiance and enjoyment of 'amateur' athletics instead of professional. BTW I'm 48 and can easily run a sub 7 mile. Love college basketball and hate pro. Also my school went to the final four my freshman year. (in case you were needing data to study your hypothesis)
Well, Arena is right. If by "be in a position to win" one means actually qualified for the tournament. We are in as hosts! Small steps baby.
I love to see John Oliver does a segment on Arena and the failed WC campaign. It will be fr****king hilarious.
Now that we have won the WC bid we need a new thread without Arena's name. I foresee that winning this thing will be a goal.
Arena may have given us the WC '26 bid. The rest of the world knows we have to be in the WC for eyeballs and $ and they figured this might be the only way the US gets in. So....vote yes. FIFA is greedy, not stupid.
Thanks to BA major f*ck up, hopefully we will get all our sh*t fixed and try to do something in 8 years.
With the current USSF's incompetent leadership, I do not see any serious improvements happening in my lifetime. Along with MLS, USSF seems more interested in promoting Mexico's NT than our own.
At any other point in US soccer history, Arena's claim would have been absurd - but I'm not sure it is now. We have a youth class that's incredibly promising, will be in their prime years in 2026, and has an outside chance to end up as a golden generation by almost any country's standards. I'm fully aware of the uncertainty involved in projecting youth prospects, but when you have two teenage players starting for Bundesliga CL teams it's more than a flash in the pan. And even the second tier of prospects look better than just about anyone we had coming up eight years ago. Plus, we'll be hosting every game. It makes a big difference. Of course, it's still very unlikely that the US will take home the World Cup in 2026. But I'd say the possibility that we could put up a reasonable fight for it is much more plausible than ever before.
Hosting the WC is not that significant. In the WC history, only 6 teams won it at home. France in 1998, and Argentina in 1978. Yes, we have some exciting young talents but I don't anticipate the US to have 11 or 18 starters on UCL teams by 2026. I believe that is the level of talents required to win the WC. We are not going anywhere near the WC final if we have Arena and Sarachan types as the coach. We need Low, Zidane, Simione, Scolari, etc. type coaches to realistically have a chance at getting to the quarter or semi finals.
What's remarkable is that England manages to find new and interesting ways to surprise and disappoint their fans, despite the ever-declining expectations. "Sure, you expected we'd be eliminated in the first round. But I bet you didn't think we'd be eliminated by an Arctic island country with more sheep than people!" It's really quite special how England works so hard at perpetuating their fanbase' s misery.
I've always wondered if qualification has always messed with things. By my count, they've essentially had cake or borderline cake qualifying groups for the Euro's and World Cup for 14 straight years. They have not gotten a qualifying group of death draw like Italy had this past cycle since 2001 when they ended up with Germany. Since then their Euro '04, '08, '12, and '16 groups were relatively benign just as their WC qualifying groups in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017 were, and they still managed to miss Euro '08 (grouped with Croatia, Russia, and nothing else of note). For whatever reason they seem to always end up with some piece of the former Yugoslavia, and some former piece of the United Kingdom and not much else of note. Perhaps it elevates their sense of the state of the team entering a tournament, then of course they face genuine competition and lose. I do think Euro '20 and WC '22 could be very different, England played some absolutely marvelous soccer at the U-20and the U-17 World Cup last year and appear to have a ton of quality players on the way. I'm very curious how they perform over the next decade. Could be their best performance since 1966-1970.
England is a good object lesson for America. There's no lack of players in top league(s) - CL, Prem, e.g. But you have to take the WC seriously if you want to get anywhere in the finals. England never did. To me it seems - correct me if I'm wrong - that there is a new attitude in their youth squads at FIFA tournaments.. Sunil would have made a good Pres of the English FA and Arena would have been a good old style manager. Imo, we are moving into the GOB age in America and we can only hope that failure to qualify for Qatar will finally wipe clean the path for somebody to move in and take the job seriously for 2026. Starting now, figure qualification is 100% and knock off 1% for every time you hear the word manana going forward. Example: "we will have a different roster in Russia; we will be reviewing our options manana; for now we have a couple of important games to win home to Panama and @ Trinidad" Notice how many people - virtually everybody in the media - were scoldling Sarachan for "trying to win" v Paraguay when we could have been seeing 15 minutes of Weah. I.o.w., they wanted to get used to losing some more. Winning could wait. Foreign commentators interpret this sort of thing as "arrogance" and I can see that.
This is a interesting topic, I like to follow up and coming nations I think many posters are focusing on the wrong metrics... I think it is a bit more subtle that many are saying. Number of kids playing, nationa league strengh and culture isn't really what takes you there. Just look at England This video, while not perfect, does address some of the more nuance factors that make a true contender. IMHO, you only have Size and you could play the tournament (being a seed helps here - the new format helps also). But you are late to the game, not really connected, not your fault your are isolated in CONCACAF, so can't innovate or adopt quickly and while US is rich the pay-to-play system hold you back. Oh and remember that Mexico will be seeded also and they aren't as late to the game. Alas you're not South Africa... Anyway, U17 and U20 WC's of 2019 and 2021 will be a good measuring stick for your progress. Gook luck