I think the subtext in his comment is that government needs to subsidize soccer so it will become more competitive in the World Cup.
🇺🇸 USA vs Belgium 🇧🇪
- Thread starter 1vagamecock
- Start date
Just my impression, but I dont think thats what hes saying.
I think hes saying that there is a lack of interest AND a financial hurdle. Two negatives against US soccer. Only one of which can really be addressed.
When I was young (mid 70's) I wanted to play football but we were poor. My dad wanted me to plat football but as a responsible Father he new we couldn't afford it (pads ,helmet and such) so I played little league and soccer.
Unless school's pay for football equipment now, if you can afford football you can afford soccer.
Unless school's pay for football equipment now, if you can afford football you can afford soccer.
Regarding your last sentence, when I was in high school you provided your own cleats, everything else was provided by the school.
Some of these players are already earning a lot money with their professional clubs so money may not be a factor. I just cannot see Haaland leaving Norway, Kane departing England, Mbappe withdraw from France to represent the United States. Their legacy of being trader to their country would be too much to bear.
I sure it does happen from time to time when a player decided to play for another country, but if the World Cup was about buying players, then I think Saudi Arabia would always win the World Cup.
I always thought there were some rules in place for who you could play for. I heard if you switch countries you have to sit out 2 years of international competition, so that is a deterrent.
But I thought even then you could only move to a country where you had a legitimate claim to citizenship.
That being said, i agree with the above, most of these guys are making their money at clubs, not playing for their country.
Baseball academies are doing their best to make baseball unaffordable. Like it was said before. Multiple $400.00 bats plus wood bats, which are less expensive but break, separate cleats, uniforms, hotels, club fees, tournament fees, gate fees, parking fees, food, lessons and my time add up significantly. I don't agree with soccer being unaffordable.
Future Brazilian futbol stars are kicking around soccer balls in the favelas every day. The cost? Whoever can afford one ball.
Yes, I think the general lack of scoring and the relative severity of a penalty in that part of the field makes it a no-brainer that you do everything you can to sell the foul.
Some of the flops are oscar-worthy, so getting a player carded for touching your shoulder is sort of like winning a golden statue.
I have watched more soccer in the past few months than I have in my entire 52 year old life previously. I went to my first Premier League match ever on a trip to London in April and watched a few matches prior to going and watched several EPL matches after. The sport has grown on me. I truly see some of the appeal. This summer, I eagerly watched the US matches leading up to the WC and have watched most of the WC matches. I feel like I am a pretty good example of the type of fan the institution of US soccer hopes to attract. Having said all that and having acknowledged the sport has grown on me, I also have to acknowledge the sport has several fatal flaws that will prevent me from ever finding it as exciting as football, basketball, and even baseball.
It's not simply a lack of scoring - but I think the lack of scoring exacerbates the other flaws in the game. I think it certainly plays a roll in the flopping because of the risk/reward analysis of penalty kicks. The offside penalty, or at least in the form that it currently exists, has to be the worst penalty in all of sports. It takes so much of the much-needed excitement out of the game. And the clock. I just don't see 21st Century Americans warming up to soccer's archaic time-keeping. Also, for regular season matches, I don't think Americans are ever going to enthusiastically embrace draws. The sport probably needs more penalty kick shootouts, not fewer. The WC matches that involved shootouts were, for once, truly exciting.
It's not simply a lack of scoring - but I think the lack of scoring exacerbates the other flaws in the game. I think it certainly plays a roll in the flopping because of the risk/reward analysis of penalty kicks. The offside penalty, or at least in the form that it currently exists, has to be the worst penalty in all of sports. It takes so much of the much-needed excitement out of the game. And the clock. I just don't see 21st Century Americans warming up to soccer's archaic time-keeping. Also, for regular season matches, I don't think Americans are ever going to enthusiastically embrace draws. The sport probably needs more penalty kick shootouts, not fewer. The WC matches that involved shootouts were, for once, truly exciting.
When the game actually ends, either seconds or near a minute after stoppage time ends, is the ref's discretion. I can't think of any other game with time keeping that does that. And the stoppage time itself is rounded to the nearest minute, not in the least bit accurate. They should have a sundial manufacturer as an official sponsor.
Same with the kids playing stick ball in the street. Have a stick and ball? Great lets play. Hell even sticks and rocks could be a baseball game. Latin America does not have a strike zone. They can hit the ball anywhere it is pitched.
Ever been to a youth soccer game. I mean 5-8 year olds. Its like a bunch of cats chasing a laser. Completely unorganized on the field because you cannot organize it. Lots of kids stop playing because its chaos. Kids quit baseball because its boring to them or they have ADHD. There are too many alternatives in America for kids to settle on playing soccer.
I'm hoping to go to Liverpool next year and see Everton play.
I dont agree with most here on the time keeping. If you watch the Lady Gamecocks play soccer (wich is just slightly better than the NBA) they run the clock from 45 minutes to zero and when there is a storage the clock stops. It's very boring that way. Another thing European leagues do better is the relegation.
If we had Relegation here you wouldn't have owners just pocketing money and not caring if they ever compete. I think ultimately if we dont allow relegation in MLS it will wither and die. You cant have 100 teams in MLS without any consequences for not putting a descent product on the field.
Absolutely about relegation and promotion. That's what fascinated me about the English football system (and others) which made we want to attend a match in the first place. I also think the leagues are more interesting than the US pro leagues in general. The EPL, in particular, reminds me more of college football in the sense that a team that plays in a 18,000 seat stadium with fairly small payroll gets a chance to compete head-to-head with a team that plays in a 70,000 seat billion-dollar+ stadium. That's so much more interesting than the contrived franchise system we have here.
But that's more about the structure of the leagues themselves rather than the fundamental rules of the game.
The Argentina-Egypt match was pretty entertaining. Other than that yeah, it’s almost like watching paint dry.