[Bushnell] A ‘broken’ system, nascent culture: Why the U.S. has never had a world-class men’s soccer

Also.................everyone has problems.

We've got good people working on it.

The issue I have is with calling our system "broken."

China has a broken system. We don't.

Its like people endlessly whining about "pay for play."

Nothing is free in Europe. Somebody is paying. The clubs are paying. And that's what we're doing in MLS and USL. The more profitable those clubs, the more money they can invest in that. Those clubs aren't making the money that Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, and Arsenal are. You know? The sport becoming more popular in this country, will drive profits, and drive more that the professional clubs can do. We live in a capitalist society after all. The more clubs can invest in coaching and infrastructure and player development, the better the players will be coming out the other end. [We hope anyway.]

Youth orchestra, the Boy Scouts, gymnastics, cheerleading and the 4H club cost money to be in too. Ask any parent. Yes, they need to sell cookies like rabid dogs in order for the girls scouts to function. Money for things has to come from somewhere.

There's no manifest destiny here for the US. We don't have some divine right to be a top 5 team in men's soccer. We can do eeeeeeeeeeeeverything that people are suggesting on these boards and still not be better than France, Spain, and Argentina at soccer. As of right now the sport is woven into the cultures of those countries in a different way than in the United States.

 

Currently the NBA and NHL finals are ongoing drawing lots of fan attention. Name me another country in the world that has other major sports leagues, let along championship finals, going on right now. Soccer has massive competition for viewers here that no other country has to deal with.
Game 3 of the NBA finals drew 23 million views which is the most since 1998 and game 1 of the NHL finals drew 4.8 million views.

 

Personally I think our system is less effective for producing world class professional teams because that's not really the goal of the system (at least not the vast, vast majority of the participants in the system). I know a lot of parents with kids in youth soccer. When you boil it down, they want (1) their kids to get exercise, (2) their kids to learn the lessons of motivation and discipline that comes from advancing in team sports and (3) their kids to get into college. I don't think there's any other soccer system in the World built around these ideas.

Personally, I think these ideas are better for the USA as a whole vs trying to squeeze out the top 0.00001% of players and produce a roster of 25 players who can beat the world.

 

Good. MLS needs to compete. Soccer out-draws baseball now, so the sport has learned how to compete in a very competitive and very lucrative media market. If MLS wants to out-drawn NHL (a reasonable goal), figure out how to make the product connect with more fans and compete. That WILL make US soccer players better pros.

 

Crocker of course was looking at what goes on here from a European perspective so he's going to be biased. We are also a country of immigrants and thus our soccer "culture" is influenced by the cultures of tons of other countries making it harder to create a "mono" culture. Also, the "soccer culture" of other countries is top down, flowing from the big leagues down to the fans which means it's much easier to be steered. Here I'd argue the culture flows the opposite way, from the bottom up. It's like politics now. The big parties have lost control and the grass roots individual voters have way more say which is why you get whacked candidates from both parties. Americans are much wealthier than the typical soccer playing family in foreign countries and thus the parents have a lot more money they can throw at coaches, travel, and tournaments.
There's something like 700 professional soccer teams, at some level, in Europe. That level of organization and professionalism makes all of this easier there than here. That gives European countries a massive advantage over us that will never ever be equaled.
I'm all for what everyone else here is for, I just think many of these "problems" can't be fixed and/or are much harder to change than many people are willing to admit.
Look at politics in our country. Seems there are several issues that should be "easy" to fix. But in reality, they are not because what "fixed" looks like is very very different to many many people. Half the country says the "solution" is bigger government while the other half says smaller government is the solution. And this is exactly why the problems continue to exist.
How many local youth leagues are willing to admit "they' are part of the problem? Probably not many. They are doing it the "right" way while the others are all screwed up. UGH

 

And thus, to those parents the system is NOT broken. There are many people who are involved with soccer who do not have the same end goals for the sport. That is not a "problem". That is reality.

 

Another honest question: why do people judge youth soccer based on the results of our senior national team? Youth soccer -- especially at the younger ages -- isn't actually meant to be part of some professional development pipeline. It's a recreational activity for kids. None of that is to say that coaching shouldn't be improved or that clubs shouldn't prioritize learning and growth over winning, as those things would probably make the experience better and more fun for the kids. But a lot of this feels like getting angry at a pizza for not being a hamburger.

 

I'd say the 3rd point is the issue, always has been but even more so now with a) the growth in quantity and quality of MLS and even USL academies and b) NCAA rules loosening on college teams recruiting players who played in pro academies in the US or abroad and may have even had a cup of coffee with the senior team. Wasn't there a recruit at some NCAA team a year or 2 ago who had actually gotten minutes in the Champions League qualifying round?

Parents dropping $20k/year for little Braxtyn to play for Elite FC Copa United because they're certain the payoff is a full ride at Stanford has always been dumb because he's historically been competing with competing with countless kids just like him across the country for that spot, and it's even dumber now that kids from that youth travel club pipeline aren't even getting the D1 scholarships at all, they're going to kids who washed out of the Real Salt Lake academy....or the Wolfsburg academy.

I have a boy who's not quite 1, if he has interest in playing and he's legitimately good enough to get into a pro academy we'll be fully supportive, otherwise he can play for his school team.

(Genetics suggest he will not be good enough to get into a pro academy)

 

Did not read the whole thread so perhaps this has been discussed, but I think one hurdle the US has in terms of becoming a top Men's National Team nation that is a bit counter-intuitive, is that we are so big, both geographically and by population. While there are some obvious exceptions - Brazil being the most obvious - it clearly does not hurt a country to be small geographically or by population (to a limit, of course). And it perhaps consolidates and concentrates resources at the most critical level. That after years of expense and effort, the Netherlands or Belgium or Croatia are consistently as good if not better than the US, even accounting for the integration/acceptance of the "colonial" players, suggests that perhaps for creating a successful national team, bigger is not always better.

I think there is an argument that we are not concentrated enough, in administration and focus, to squeeze the vast footie resources through that final small door into consistently top-tier. We generally have gotten better - across the board and on average - by increments, but maybe the final step(s) to consistent class need an even more focused approach. A true "personality" to shape the team and program. Or a ruthless administration that prioritizes Men's National Team success over all else.

 

One of the problems with saying "Pay to play" is a problem and needs to change is that almost all other youth sports do the same thing. Convincing parents and such that soccer development should be distinctly different than other sports is going to be very very hard.
Parents pay for private football, baseball, basketball, cheer, tennis etc etc coaching but we want to convince them they shouldn't do that and sponsors or pro clubs, or whatever should, isn't realistic.
And many parents aren't doing this because they believe their kid will get a D1 scholarship. They understand the realities of top level college sports. They just have the disposable income, or are willing to go into debt, to give their kid extra coaching.

 

This obviously is true, but not the point.
It's imbecil expensive in the USA.
What does this mean? Of course the pro clubs are paying for THEIR academies, but NOT for the costs of the pyramid that feed those academies. That is paid by the parents and the members of the amateur clubs as non profit organizations.
Do you really think the main difference between the USA and European countries in relation to how kids become pro players is the money the top 20 clubs of the world/Europe spend on their academies?

What part of the quote I posted of Earnest Stewart don't you understand?
The whole pyramid, which foundation is the non profit amateur clubs, is geared to have kids play soccer and not being excluded because of ridiculous high costs like in the P2P system. From that the kids are systemetically put into teams of more or less equal quality, so up to the youth teams of the best and get to play similar selected youth teams of other clubs.
That's what Stewart with his remarks ment, the system in Europe is geared to end in kids playing with the best of their club against the best of the other amateur clubs. That's the pond from which the pro academies recrute and it has nothing to do with the amount of money clubs like Bayern make.
If that pyramid was non existent, all the money they have would be meaningless.

 

Correct. Hotbeds of SoCal, St Louis, and NJ are so spread out, trying to get a cohesive, single way of doing things is nearly impossibe.

 

Dunno from where that perception stemms, but it sounds like you think soccer in Europe is controlled by the pro clubs.
It isnot.
As I explained in my last post, the pro clubs actually depend on the amateur clubs. The soccer culture was alive and kicking long before the pro clubs came in existence.
The top of soccer in Europe actually float on the water of the amateur soccer.
Dunno what you imagine by the big leagues stearing the fans.
As the superleague debacle has shown is that you donot touch as the top clubs the foundation of soccer.

 

The clubs don't "control" but they have major influence and the culture of soccer is a very professional one in Europe than in the US. I work with kids and parents for a living and many of these kids play soccer and many of those parents are completely oblivious the World Cup is being played, let alone being played here. Pretty sure no parent of a soccer playing kid in Europe is oblivious like that. That's what I am talking about. Many of these parents don't even know MLS is a thing, let alone the Richmond Kickers are a team, which is where I live.
I traveled to Europe way back in 89 when I was in high school (damn I'm old) to play in the Dana Cup, Capital Cup (back when Bonn was still the Capitol of Germany) and the Gothia Cup and was blown away by how structured and professional all of the local teams were compared to us. We have grown a lot since then but not even close to where Europe was then or now.

 

Oh gsus, this crap again.
The Orange Squad reached two finals without colonial players, "Total Football" was conceived before any colonial player came about, clubs won European silverware/dominated Europe before any colonial player made his appearance.
This crap only comes from Americans and to me it sounds like a try to dismiss the success/quality gap/difference between the USMNT and the Orange Squad as simply colonial appropriation, and not the virtue of the Dutch on themselves.
Without colonial players we reached two WC finals and won on club level 4 CL and 3 other UEFA silverware finals and lost two UEFA club silverware finals.
With colonial players we reached one WC final and won the Euro 1988 final and won one CL and one UEFA Cup final.

So overall we did worse since colonial players entered.
The bad thing about this "colonial" appropriation mantra is that in fact these "colonial" players were a Dutch soccer culture product, not an imported one (like Dest).
There's reason why Surinam on itself has zero soccer impact since independence and isnot producing any top player. If it was so, that the "colonial" players on themselves were the difference makers, how come since independence only Dutch born/raised since childhood players make a name and zero ones from the colonial origin?
Why do you think the selection of Morocco, Surinam, Curacao, Indonesia and Cabo Verde have Dutch born players to make up the quality gap of their own native selections?

 

If anyone hasn't read Soccernomics I suggest it. It is excellent and a chapter goes in depth why Western Europe is the hub of soccer influence.

 

Well, I can't deny that coaching at amateur clubs definitively has quality wise gone up and professionalized since the 1990ies. I think however it was an internal development on it's own within the amateur world., but not at the cost of exploding contributions fees for players in the clubs.
It comes from the fact that, at least for Dutch clubs, but I can't imagine it being different elsewhere in Europe, amateur clubs are an all ages clubs.

 

Well yeah. But there are only 18 million Dutch and you guys have almost 40 teams in the first and second division. In comparison, Virginia has almost 9 million people and we have .... 2 minor league teams and my Richmond Kickers are in the 3rd division. You guys are overflowing with professional clubs, the culture that goes along with that, and high level former players and coaches who coach the kids and what not. That's why you guys kick ass.

 

In those cases, and the case of many/most of the players who have parents that have played professionally they have two important advantages: 1) role model/teacher/coach 2) Contacts

Realistically, imo, the level that the parents need to have played at isn't too far up the pyramid. I believe that someone who has played at the club level, for instance, has more than enough experience and knowledge to get a young kid age 2-6yrs old started and then support them with advice easily into late adolescence (even for an elite player). Possibly further. What they may or may not have is contacts and or finances that would assist them in getting into a quality development program. That is the main advantage (imo) that those mentioned above have over a parent that played seriously but not at an elite level through their high school years.

 

Well, the title of the thread is:
A ‘broken’ system, nascent culture: Why the U.S. has never had a world-class men’s soccer:
The system actually isnot broken, but rather incomplete I would say.

We have more than 40 pro clubs, because in the "amateur" leagues there are semi-professinal clubs active.
The origin of the density of Dutch amateur clubs was that apart from friends starting a club just to play soccer, practically every business, religion/churches, village or even political oriented organizations had a club.

This for instance is the logo of the Wageningse Arbeiders Voetbal Vereniging or translated Wageningen Workers Football Club.

 

well, can't post the logo it seems.

 

We need to be less results oriented and more growth/developmental oriented at everything but the senior level.

 

The money motive is interesting--but is it really that different from hoops or baseball (which I'm more familiar with as a parent)? Like soccer, there is a limited amount of sponsored teams for the elite players. It would be interesting to compare the number of players in funded hoops teams to the MLS academies. Most kids playing club hoops and baseball are paying into clubs that are money making endeavors. And those clubs (as with soccer) continue to offer "club" and "travel" at levels where the costs are high and the prospects for playing in college are low (let alone any prospects of scholarships or pro opportunities). Many of the clubs make their money on the delusions of parents who don't understand anything about the likelihood of scholarships and the level of their kid. (And that's separate form the extra coaching--my son was 8 or 9 when other parents essentially told me I was a bad dad if I didn't get my son working with a pitching coach right away.) And many parents seem to falsely equate the team winning games with the liklihood of personal success. So many of the clubs focus more on winning and playing games than on deep practice.) But we generate elite baseball and basketball players. So I think it is overly simplistic to blame that system. Other factors seem bigger to me than the profit process. (And for what it's worth, I find the idea that the government should subsidize it ridiculous.)