OT: If soccer was the #1 sport in USA

[TheGOATRises007]

If the US cared about Soccer, we'd dominate it so thoroughly that the rest of the world would choose some other sport to play, and try to make us feel like we should care about it more than the sport we own.

What ignorance

The US do care about Soccer.

[AdagioPace]

If the US cared about Soccer, we'd dominate it so thoroughly that the rest of the world would choose some other sport to play, and try to make us feel like we should care about it more than the sport we own.

Big words considering the US failed to make the World Cup against competition like Panama. A nation with 1% the population of the US where football isn't even the number one sport.

didn't you hear? they DID NOT care..

MLS teams waste so much money chasing washed up players and they would probably still get smashed by the average european club like Sampdoria (so they care a bit but they're not quite efficient)

[Goon]

I am sure USA, Canada or Russia will never produce players caliebers of today's Ronaldo & Messi. Not even players close to their level.

Lol okay buddy , this is wrong.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Shevchenko

So are you seriously trying to say he was on the same level as two arguably the best of all time? That's similar as if you'd compare someone like Paul Pierce to Jordan or LeBron.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

De Gea, Pogba, Lukaku, Zlatan are all between 6'3 and 6'5, the combined population of their 4 countries is 1/3 of what the US population is. Just numbers alone and the US would produce some taller players IF the country cared about the sport like the rest of the world and had the academies but it doesn't, this is all hypothetical since the NBA & NFl get all the development money in the US and soccer is viewed as a rich persons sport there.

Population size can be an advantage, but does not necessarily mean you'll automatically be successful if you pour money into it. Belgium has one of the best rosters in the World Cup and the country has a population of 11 million. Uruguay has produced some great players like Suarez, Godin or Cavani and they have a population of 3 million. It's not only about developmental money, it's about a tradition and a culture. From a physical standpoint there is no reason why Germany for example could not produce better basketball talent or talent for the NFL. But there is not only a lack of infrastructure, but more importantly a lack of culture.

This discussion is under the idea that making it to the NBA & NFL has been replaced by thoughts of making it to Premier, Liga, Ligue etc which would be the culture change. A country of 350 million with the national sport being soccer would produce players, and some of those players would be unique to that country since a part of the underlying American culture in sports is the obsession with measurables and athleticism.

Lithuania is obsessed with basketball and has the infrastructure, culture and coaching, but it doesn't produce the same level of NBA athletes as Seattle which is 1/4 the size. The US is obsessed with athleticism and it shows in a lot of sports, I don't see why that wouldn't be the same if soccer were the number 1 sport there with the culture/academies in place.

The biggest problem for the US would be getting past the social outrage, because to be a great footballer you have to start earlier and for a country that doesn't like seeing guys skip college, there's no way they'd be able to handle the idea of a 8 year old being signed by a club.

[RGM_SU]

This discussion is under the idea that making it to the NBA & NFL has been replaced by thoughts of making it to Premier, Liga, Ligue etc which would be the culture change. A country of 350 million with the national sport being soccer would produce players, and some of those players would be unique to that country since a part of the underlying American culture in sports is the obsession with measurables and athleticism.

Lithuania is obsessed with basketball and has the infrastructure, culture and coaching, but it doesn't produce the same level of NBA athletes as Seattle which is 1/4 the size. The US is obsessed with athleticism and it shows in a lot of sports, I don't see why that wouldn't be the same if soccer were the number 1 sport there with the culture/academies in place.

The biggest problem for the US would be getting past the social outrage, because to be a great footballer you have to start earlier and for a country that doesn't like seeing guys skip college, there's no way they'd be able to handle the idea of a 8 year old being signed by a club.

It would take decades to build up the knowledge within the nation to truly consistently compete. And regarding the athleticism fetish, from sport to sport there are differences regarding what type of athleticism is required. For example, just look at baseball. Some of the best players look hardly like elite level athletes. And indeed, you can run and jump a world record, but if you can't hit or throw the freaking ball it's useless. Athleticism is important in football, no doubt. But the sport is so fundamentally different on many levels from NBA or NFL that the athleticism = success equation does not hold up. Spain dominated national team football for 4 years, winning three major titles in succession and which of their players would you truly regard as elite athlete by NFL/NBA standards?

[NO-KG-AI]

US do care about Soccer.

Lol, compared to what? Curling?

[Goon]

The question OP posted can be answered in two ways.

1. Did he mean that football is the #1 sport in the USA for years like in other top nations? Then the USA is probably one of the better teams. To say "#1 without a doubt" is a major reach since who the top team constantly fluctuates. No team is always on top and to say that the USA would have the most world cups seriously underestimates Brazil and a few other nations.

2. Did he mean that football just became the #1 sport in the USA in recent time? Then the answer is a resounding NO. It takes years, decades to establish the culture, the system, the leagues, quality coaching and so on before a country is capable to produce top tier players on a constant basis.

It's definitely an interesting hypothetical. But in any case impossible to predict.

[FlorentinoPerez]

Genetics are big part of being good in Soccer... Northern Countries will never be good enough in Soccer.

Brazilians, Argentinians, Spaniards, Germans etc. are always be a top Soccer countries, as they have 'genetics' to play it very well.

Chinese, Indians, Scandinavians, Northern Americans, Russians, most of Brits & White French etc. will never play soccer very well with few exceptions.

wtf lol this is so wrong

Genetics play a part in the sport but not the way you describe it. Especially saying Brits and French will never be good (ignoring history) but countries like Germany and Italy are good in your books ? Where do you draw the line for northern countries in europe ? Hilarious .

Germany is maybe the best right now alongside Spain
Italy has been the best many years, they are historically one of the big dogs

[NoDopeOnSundays]

This discussion is under the idea that making it to the NBA & NFL has been replaced by thoughts of making it to Premier, Liga, Ligue etc which would be the culture change. A country of 350 million with the national sport being soccer would produce players, and some of those players would be unique to that country since a part of the underlying American culture in sports is the obsession with measurables and athleticism.

Lithuania is obsessed with basketball and has the infrastructure, culture and coaching, but it doesn't produce the same level of NBA athletes as Seattle which is 1/4 the size. The US is obsessed with athleticism and it shows in a lot of sports, I don't see why that wouldn't be the same if soccer were the number 1 sport there with the culture/academies in place.

The biggest problem for the US would be getting past the social outrage, because to be a great footballer you have to start earlier and for a country that doesn't like seeing guys skip college, there's no way they'd be able to handle the idea of a 8 year old being signed by a club.

It would take decades to build up the knowledge within the nation to truly consistently compete. And regarding the athleticism fetish, from sport to sport there are differences regarding what type of athleticism is required. For example, just look at baseball. Some of the best players look hardly like elite level athletes. And indeed, you can run and jump a world record, but if you can't hit or throw the freaking ball it's useless. Athleticism is important in football, no doubt. But the sport is so fundamentally different on many levels from NBA or NFL that the athleticism = success equation does not hold up. Spain dominated national team football for 4 years, winning three major titles in succession and which of their players would you truly regard as elite athlete by NFL/NBA standards?

But, we're talking about this in a hypothetical with the end result being - the US would be very good if the sport were number 1 there. As for your point, yes there's more to football than athleticism, but that's why I say the US would introduce a very ugly but effective brand of football, because I don't think they'd go about it like everyone else. They'd bring about a new style of play because their athletes are different, and you'd have some technically sound players but you'd also have the guy who just has decent skills in some otherworldly body frame that amplifies how good he actually is, because that is how all of their sports are.

[FlorentinoPerez]

Genetics are big part of being good in Soccer... Northern Countries will never be good enough in Soccer.

Brazilians, Argentinians, Spaniards, Germans etc. are always be a top Soccer countries, as they have 'genetics' to play it very well.

Chinese, Indians, Scandinavians, Northern Americans, Russians, most of Brits & White French etc. will never play soccer very well with few exceptions.

What?

Germany is a pretty 'northern' country. Britain has always been pretty good in soccer.

I think it's more the fact that in poorer countries such as Spain, Argentina, Italy and Brazil soccer is the easiest sport to play. You don't need to buy a basketball net, have a baseball field, purchase equipment like football and hockey.

All you need is a ball.

That is why those countries produce excellent soccer and track athletes...because they are literally the only sports the population grow up competing in.

Italy (specially the North) and Spain are not poor countries LOL

the reason Spain has good players is bc spend an insane amount of money developing players, forming coaches, etc

[mtron929]

The US would be good. One of the best teams in the world, no doubt. But there is this notion amongst some that if the US becomes a powerhouse, they will bring something completely different to the game. That is, there will be this new breed of soccer players in the mold of Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Randy Moss, etc. that will fundamentally change the way we think about what it means to be a great soccer player. I just don't agree with this. I think it is most likely that the US will produce world class players but they will look a lot like the current best players in soccer. That is more like 5 feet 7 inches version of US Messi as opposed to some 6 feet 6 dude that revolutionalizes soccer.

[bargnanimvp]

We'd easily be among the best. It's the sheer size of the country along with the fact that we're a melting pot that would give us an advantage over smaller nations.

The hardest part would be digging back out from years of not prioritizing it as a sport and building the right culture etc., but if you're asking where the US would rank had soccer always been the #1 sport in the USA, the answer is unequivocally among the best of the best.

The sheer size/population of a contry does jack when related to soccer.
CHina sucks.
India Sucks.
Indonesia Sucks.

WHilst Belgium or Netherlands are frankly good.

And ICELAND is actually becoming a good team.
ICeland.

300mil inhabitnts or something like that.

You skipped the entire point of the thread which was if soccer was the number 1 sport. It's not number one in china india or indonesia. Culture matters too Indonesia doesn't do a lot of sports (and a lot of their population isn't in western style cities or centralized) and china and india focus on other sports. USA has the size, sporting culture and the cash. The "1 without a doubt" stuff is a bit arrogant, in world sports teams will fluctuate and even with size and money you often see traditionally good teams go through slumps but they would no doubt be one of the power house teams expected to do well.

I don't see them changing the style like some say, that too just sounds ignorant and seems to imply no other countries have produced tall athletic people which they have it's just soccer tends to not favor those kinds of players so just like they do now for those countries they would likely gravitate to sports that do favors those kinds of builds.

[mixerball]

im from europe but i can honestly admit US would be up there with the best of them. US have amazingly huge player base along with athleticism, but still, athleticism would not guarantee domination like in basketball.

[Danny1616]

Genetics are big part of being good in Soccer... Northern Countries will never be good enough in Soccer.

Brazilians, Argentinians, Spaniards, Germans etc. are always be a top Soccer countries, as they have 'genetics' to play it very well.

Chinese, Indians, Scandinavians, Northern Americans, Russians, most of Brits & White French etc. will never play soccer very well with few exceptions.

What?

Germany is a pretty 'northern' country. Britain has always been pretty good in soccer.

I think it's more the fact that in poorer countries such as Spain, Argentina, Italy and Brazil soccer is the easiest sport to play. You don't need to buy a basketball net, have a baseball field, purchase equipment like football and hockey.

All you need is a ball.

That is why those countries produce excellent soccer and track athletes...because they are literally the only sports the population grow up competing in.

Italy (specially the North) and Spain are not poor countries LOL

the reason Spain has good players is bc spend an insane amount of money developing players, forming coaches, etc

Again, did I say they were poor countries? No.

Did I say they were poorer compared to Germany? Yes.

[Heat3]

We are #1 in women’s soccer and that is probably the team sport they focus on most. Volleyball as well. If the men focused on soccer instead of NFL/NBA etc we could be number 1 as well. Not always but there is a large pool of athletes to pick from.

[Optms]

Given the training resources available in this country, probably in the top 3-5 and arguably the best at times.

The USA isn't inherently superior, so just because we put effort and focus into it, doesn't mean we're automatically going to be the best. Other countries have been putting effort and focus into it for decades, so at best we could catch up to them. I think it's kind of lame to think that if we just started trying we would be the best at a sport that the rest of the world has been putting blood, sweat and tears into for decades. Not so fast.

Don't kid yourself. It'd be a bloodbath for the rest of the world within two decades. No other country has the population pool with the amount of diversity to destroy the world that United States has.

[anon2222]

Genetics are big part of being good in Soccer... Northern Countries will never be good enough in Soccer.

Brazilians, Argentinians, Spaniards, Germans etc. are always be a top Soccer countries, as they have 'genetics' to play it very well.

Chinese, Indians, Scandinavians, Northern Americans, Russians, most of Brits & White French etc. will never play soccer very well with few exceptions.

What do you mean by northern countries?

You do know the world is so mixed up in terms of migrations and human meddling. Your comment is so contradicting don't even know where to start? Any damn person from any ethnicity or geography can play well in football/soccer. Basing it on what you have said is just wrong. Give a player the right youth training, clubs, coaching etc... and they can be very good players.

It has nothing to do with race/ethnicity/genetics/geography. It's on the player and his personal family genes and the environment he was conditioned in.

Some of the world's best players come from different backgrounds and systems of growing up (including geography, ethnicity, genetics, available facilities, motivation etc...). No particular race/ethnicity/geography determines the best players: it is a combination of all and the players' motivations. Your statement is so flawed.

[B-Ball Freak]

Probably number one or somewhere in the top 3 but that's only if they hire the right people to run the program right, think of the possibilities....USA's best athletes with the main priority of making it in soccer like a LeBron for example.

Think of all the money they could pour into it, hiring massive amount of good coaches and the facilities that they can build all over the country. If done right they can potentially dominate it.

[B-Ball Freak]

The US would be good. One of the best teams in the world, no doubt. But there is this notion amongst some that if the US becomes a powerhouse, they will bring something completely different to the game. That is, there will be this new breed of soccer players in the mold of Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Randy Moss, etc. that will fundamentally change the way we think about what it means to be a great soccer player. I just don't agree with this. I think it is most likely that the US will produce world class players but they will look a lot like the current best players in soccer. That is more like 5 feet 7 inches version of US Messi as opposed to some 6 feet 6 dude that revolutionalizes soccer.

How about Cristiano Ronaldo though he is a revolutionary player too, think of an Odell Beckham Jr. type of athleticism with Ronaldo's skill level.

[CallMeKahn]

Given the training resources available in this country, probably in the top 3-5 and arguably the best at times.

The USA isn't inherently superior, so just because we put effort and focus into it, doesn't mean we're automatically going to be the best. Other countries have been putting effort and focus into it for decades, so at best we could catch up to them. I think it's kind of lame to think that if we just started trying we would be the best at a sport that the rest of the world has been putting blood, sweat and tears into for decades. Not so fast.

Don't kid yourself. It'd be a bloodbath for the rest of the world within two decades. No other country has the population pool with the amount of diversity to destroy the world that United States has.

I was actually having this conversation with some co-workers a few weeks ago. Hosting the World cup in '26 could go a long way towards galvanizing our nascent programs and the MLS forward. But pure athleticism wouldn't do it alone as a ton has to do with vision, skill, and a lot of cerebral elements. That said, the US could be a real power in the sport if the populous demanded it, but it would take time before training programs, the MLS, and associated leagues really bore fruit. Long story short, it would take time to catch up to more traditional powers like Germany and Brazil and given how flighty our population is as of late, I wonder if it ever would really happen.

I hope I'm wrong though. It would be kind of cool to be the new badass on the block.