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

I think you are exaggerating the scope of the shoe companies. Yes, there are funded teams. But it sure isn't the bulk of AAU. As I noted, it would be interesting to compare the scope of funded teams to the scope of the MLS academies. (It would also be interesting to know how much families have typically "invested" in club hoops before their kid gets onto one of those sponsored teams.)

 

The problem isn't the vision. The problem is the implementation.
U.S. Soccer has a new vision for youth development. Implementing it is ‘an astronomical ask’ - The Athletic

There's nobody disputing any of the challenges folks are talking about on this thread.

As that Atlantic article describes in detail, the folks at the USSF are working on it.

.........but the USSF has very little authority to impact some of these spaces.

 

Systems don't develop talent.

Talent leverages systems.

 

This is how the KNVB keeps the fun in for U12yo kids.
First of all no match results are published, nor teams are put in competition tables.
So kids truly can play just for fun, not for someone's urge to get results.
They however do keep track of how each team and the players perform.
Translation from their site https://www.knvb.nl/nieuws/assist/assist/50526/Het-mDWF-in-het-pupillenvoetbal

15-0, 18-1, 10-2. These are results that regularly occur in the pupils. There are many teams with children who have just started playing football. Such results are no fun for anyone. Not for the children who lose big every week, but also not for the players who win far too easily time and time again. That is why the KNVB strives for more equal matches in youth football (Under 7 to Under 12). Filling in the mobile digital competition form (mDWF) is important for this. Why?
The mDWF (which can be found in the Match Affairs app) contains the names of all players in the team. This way the KNVB knows who plays in which team and how good those players are together. The results of the competitions are passed on via the mDWF. Although no results and rankings are kept up to and including Under 10, the KNVB does use the results to improve the group classifications. We let equal teams play against each other more often, so that the matches become more exciting. In addition, age is checked via the mDWF, so that not too many older or younger players play in a match.

Data per team and individually
Filling in the mDWF correctly for each match is important. The more and better data the KNVB has, the better the classifications become. The data is both per team and per player individually. Only players who have actually played should therefore be listed on the mDWF. For every match a player has played, he or she is given a certain value. That value is used to determine the strength of the team. We call this the Team Index. The Team Index is used from the Under 13 onwards to classify the competitions as evenly as possible.

Although the classification of the pupils is not yet according to the Team Index, it is already important to collect data on the strength of players. Without that information, the Team Index does not work properly and it is difficult to form equal leagues from the Under 13 onwards. So is a player with the youngest youth absent due to swimming lessons, illness or vacation? Then make sure that he or she is not on the mDWF for that match.

etc.

 

My guess is still that the problem is at the tiny tippy top of the pyramid, not the broad bottom. By any metric (outside of winning international hardware) the USMNT overall has been getting better: Higher paid players on the club level. Better clubs. More CL play for more players, MLS rising in rankings, eyeballs on games, kids participating etc. etc.

But at the very, very tippy top of the pyramid, there are 10-15 countries that tend to do it just a bit better than us with consistency.

I'm of the opinion that the incremental improvements are millimeters at the top of the pyramid, not yards at the bottom. Going from the US to a, say, Spain or Germany or Argentina level of achievement and consistency takes a huge amount of resources (meaning more than money: talent, focus, intention etc. etc.) on a relatively small group of players.

I will wager that, given where we are in kid footie participation, Johnny pretty-good-but-not-elite having fun or not having fun has negligible effect on the national team performance. Quality of coaching staff and selection ability and federation from u-15 on up has a huge effect.

 

So many good takeaways and points from this Poch quote on American soccer development. https://t.co/hftqAOpbWv pic.twitter.com/fX9JfH63iD

— SuperiorUSMNT (@EinSchwarzwelt) June 13, 2026

 

Part of it is just you have way more professional youth academies providing opportunities for players. So it’s much harder to get missed or fall through the cracks.

New York City and London are roughly the same population for instance. We have two professional teams there compared to 17 in London. And there’s basically no way of making up that sort of gap on our end.

 

That's kinda the thing though--NYC and London are roughly the same size but now do LA, Chicago, Philly, Houston vs Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Leeds.

 

I’m guessing there’s still a disparity but that it’s not as large.

The problem also is our cities are so much bigger. Birmingham is the second biggest city in England and is way smaller in population than LA our second biggest city. It’s more comparable to a place like Phoenix. They have two in Birmingham if you include the city limits and 6 if you include the metro area. Meanwhile LA a city with triple the population has 3 if you include OC.

 

Croatia has population density, and a footballing (and, truly, general sporting) culture where kids with aptitude develop basic skills mastery by 6ish (as someone here aptly phrased it), with a lot of coaching and scouting infrastructure. Also while Croatia's population is around 4 million, their diaspora is over 10 million and much of it is concentrated in nations that likewise have population density and footballing culture. Countries like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc.

 

USSF very much is trying and has the right ideas in mind in many cases. It’s just a very intractable problem. But also frustrating we keep losing sporting directors and it feels like each time we’re starting from scratch. Because both Earnie Stewart and Crocker had ideas along these lines and were trying their best to push uphill in the right direction.

 

Here's a take that most will think is crazy, at least at first: Pay for play...everyone's developmental nightmare, is not the problem!

Pay for play is not the problem. It is a symptom. The major problem, as many have pointed out is that the money needed to fund a complete development system is not there. Compounding that factor is that we would need more money per capita because we don't have parental expertise and we are lacking soccer density. Interesstingly enough, "soccer culture" can be seen, at least partially, as making pay for play possible and, at the same time, being the solution.

So what happens? Clubs, USSF or somebody else doesn't step up with that money? Parents foot the bill. How? that's where pay for play steps in and becomes a key part of the infrastructure.

Solution? Work from bottom up (U6-U8 or 10ish) by improving quality of rec leagues as young parents with more and more basic to intermediate knowledge coach and as more and more young parents send their kids into those leagues with a basic understanding and (hopefully) a love of the game. Give out participation trophies if you want, that was never a problem. The game should be fun. Competition and winning? Let the kids keep track (they will) but don't keep score for them. By the time that the kids are 6-8ish, the best players will be starting to separate from the rest. Meanwhile, hopefully, local academies sponsored by MLS and/or USL teams will be increasing in number to provide free (for the elite) and cheaper training for the very good.

As popularity increases, more money from the local private community will find it's way into the game. As an example, in the 90's I played in a few leagues in South Central Los Angeles. All of the leagues I played in were dominated by Latin American players; Mexican leagues, Costa Rican, Guatemalan. There was a team "owner" who paid all the fees, provided uniforms etc. We had fans that watched the games, we had a trainer who massaged and manipulated ankles etc when injured. At the same time, I was playing in a suburban Sunday league where we had to pay the money for uniforms, referees, fields and the only fans on the sidelines were a few girlfriends that didn't have anything better to do.

 

Pretty much what I've stated. More pointedly, without the significant expenditures of money, the only solution is the slow growth of soccer culture in the US.

 

Indeed. Population density, basic skills mastery by around age 6, and a lot of qualified coaches and scouts.

That's how they do it. It's not magic.

We need to work on the basic skills mastery at an early age, and I don't know what we'll ever do about the population density issue. That's why our irritating travel team industry exists. It's a poor, imperfect solution to that very problem.

But we're slowly developing a network of qualified coaches and referees. Every year that USL and MLS exist, there come to be more former professional players in need of a job.

 

Who in the current National Team set up lacks basic skills mastery? This isn't Gyasi Zardes's National Team. Folks are grasping at outdated tropes.

 

of course that's where the catch 22 comes into play. Money comes from profit on soccer. Profit comes when soccer is profitable. Soccer is profitable when it is popular. Soccer is getting more popular, in large part because we are getting better at it. USA loves winners.

It's circular. How do we improve the rate of development? we get better at it. How do we get better at it? we improve our development.

 

Not sure, but I think most of the discussion is about "when" those basic skills are developed and mastered. That being said, your point about our team not lacking skill is spot on.

We have always had a few players with superior skills. Guys like Tab Ramos, Claudio Reyna and others but they were the exception.

I think one of the best indicators of our overall talent pool is the skill level in positions that are further back on the field. Guys like Freeman more than guys like Hall or Sullivan. That may or may not sound strange but to have a guy like Freeman, who can play with the ball and attack as a cb or rb is something we have not had from a domestically developed player since JOB. Right now, he is one player but if it turns out that he is not the exception, then that would be a clear sign that we are well on our way...

 

The Northeast has a soccer culture. It has always had a soccer culture. From Bert Patenaude to Tab Ramos to Brenden Aaronson.

 

Texas is decidedly not part of the South.

 

So I don't keep up with the US lesser leagues around the country but if the Dallas area is not an anomaly there are a bunch of newish area lower level teams in Dallas itself and the suburbs (the Metroplex). I'm guessing it's the same elsewhere. Of course there's nowhere near the history of all those London clubs or even as high a level as most but ten years ago there might have one or two and now I'd guess it's 10-15.