This is like asking why isn’t the US better at Cricket.
Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
101–110 of 280 posts
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#102I don't think the article really tried to answer the question, though maybe that wasn't its intent and the author was genuinely asking. I think an answer would need to look at the difference in how kids and teens play soccer in the US vs other countries. In the US soccer is mostly a younger kids' sport, and is generally highly structured, with kids playing on teams once or twice a week. Compare to Europe, where many…
The US has also strangely invented a lot of sports (Americans football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, skateboarding, snowboarding, and so on). Soccer has major competition in the US. Because these sports started in America too, America usually dominates them.
> The US has also strangely invented a lot of sports (Americans football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, skateboarding, snowboarding, and so on).
It appears the sports industry in US skewed local preferences toward hardware-intensive sports, that sell lots of gear. Poor children can start playing soccer stuffing crumpled paper in plastic bags to create a makeshift ball, and using spaced sandals as makeshift goalposts. Minimal hardware requirements. It's harder to play baseball or football without all assortment of costly bats, helmets, gloves, et cetera. Basketball comes closer to soccer in this regard.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#103I’ll throw in my pet theory. American football is rooted in infantry maneuvers Civil War through WWII. Soccer is closer to cavalry, a Second Millennium European experience.
Cavalry was never that important in the military experiences of Americans since its founding a mere 250 years ago, whereas lots of folks served in the infantry — Civil War through WWII. The US, moreover, is essentially a 20th Century country; infantry, tanks, air forces, etc. is 20th Century warfare; and American football echoes those 20th Century technologies.
The romantic ideal and practical effectiveness of cavalry over many centuries, ending in the 20th Century/WWI, made it much more deeply ingrained in the European (Old World) psyche. Soccer is cavalry, thus Europe and past colonies gravitated towards it.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#104My problem is I can’t stay interested for long. Yes, it’s possible that it’s a “me” problem. 90 minutes of kicking the ball back and forth across the pitch that feels too large for the task at hand, occasionally scoring, only to end up with what amounts to a pretty low scoring game. It’s just hard to watch, it seems to move so much slower than I can handle. If it works for others, that’s awesome; any sport that has t…
I think it’s hard to truly appreciate any sport you haven’t played yourself. I personally cannot get excited about baseball, and it’s probably mostly because of my own lack of playing experience.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#105Answer is simple.
Why isn't U.S. better at Field hockey, Badminton, Cricket, Ping pong etc.?
Ideally a capitalistic system is supposed to produce the best or close to the best in each category to stay competitive then what gives?
Capitalism produces the "best" in categories where there is a high demand for a product. In the U.S., the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. This is closely entwined with "culture".
This is why the U.S. leads in sports that are tailored for television and massive stadium revenue. Sports that are more nuanced, low-scoring, or lack a domestic TV or the US cultural zeigeist simply cannot compete for the attention span of the American consumer, and by extension, the capital that follows that attention.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#106The US isnt better at soccer because our best potential soccer players are playing defensive back or point guard.
It's that simple.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#107Answer is simple. Why isn't U.S. better at Field hockey, Badminton, Cricket, Ping pong etc.? Ideally a capitalistic system is supposed to produce the best or close to the best in each category to stay competitive then what gives? Capitalism produces the "best" in categories where there is a high demand for a product. In the U.S., the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. This is closely ent…
Is modern baseball "high-production-value entertainment"?
For basketball and American football, those sports weren't exactly blockbusters either. The rules and strategies of those games have been carefully tailored over the years to cater to action and scoring, something that was never going happen to the rules (or laws) of soccer.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#108I don't think the article really tried to answer the question, though maybe that wasn't its intent and the author was genuinely asking. I think an answer would need to look at the difference in how kids and teens play soccer in the US vs other countries. In the US soccer is mostly a younger kids' sport, and is generally highly structured, with kids playing on teams once or twice a week. Compare to Europe, where many…
> For a US kid, soccer is typically "pay to play."
This is true for most sports (and activities) in the US. Additionally, the US doesn't have the concept of unstructured play, as many (most?) kids are fully depend on the parent or the school to take them places, since most of the US is so car-dependent.
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#109Several Factors:
1.Socker does not have pause of the game as a result no add, mean not commercial $$$. Several years ago research show that none of EU socker team are profitable.
2. Boring game. Watching 90 min for maybe 1-0 score
Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?
#110The comments here are wild. Uh the answer is football/basketball/baseball. We send our best athletes into football, basketball, and baseball. They don't play soccer. I would argue its more shocking that we are as good we are considering the talent pool.
I don’t think this is fully correct. Athletic skill is not universal across sports. A athlete that can be trained to be a star football player may not be able to be trained to be a star baseball player.
Even though chances of succeeding in any are small, a potential athlete has far more to gain by being successful at football/basketball/baseball than at soccer. It's nearly impossible for even a star athlete to succeed at more than one sport, (see also, Michael Jordan) so anyone who wants to be a famous athlete has no incentive to train for anything other than the top three sports.