Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 280 posts

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#141

Post by rauljordan2020 »

rdtsc wrote: post #23

> The United States is not exactly lacking in athletic prowess, as our women’s team and our success in other sports show. That's one of the answers: it's seen as a "women's" sport mostly. In school boys play football and girls play soccer in rough general terms. And because football, basketball, baseball is already there there just isn't much demand for another "ball" sport to care about so to speak.

This is hilarious because we think the same about any sport that isn't soccer (football) in much of Latin America: "basketball / baseball is what girls play" is the tagline folks said growing up

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#142

Post by PearlRiver »

otherme123 wrote: post #46
SamBam wrote: post #19

I 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…

> Finally, a good European player doesn't necessarily head to college. They may be playing for a serious club team at 18 or 19. My guess is that less than 5% of european soccer players ever set a foot in College, at least in the biggest Leagues (UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany). I only know two: Lampard and Iniesta. There might be a few more, but they are oddities. If anything, a good player and good student usu…

Most soccer players tend to retire in their late 30s so they are better off pursuing an education after their pro athlete career. Of course the best are multi millionaires who never have to work and can live from passive income.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#143

Post by stephencanon »

gbear605 wrote: post #124
qingcharles wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't soccer a mostly women's sport in the USA? Do boys even play it at all? The USA women's team is world class, probably for this reason. In the UK boys mostly play soccer while girls traditionally played netball (basketball).

Soccer is extremely widespread and played by both boys and girls at a young age (up until puberty or so), but there definitely is a gender gap after that. I'd guess that there are a lot of other sports that are almost solely played by boys, so boys tend to drift away from soccer, while there are fewer options for girls. (Though there are some - lacrosse and softball for a couple examples.)

Field hockey is almost exclusively a girls sport in the US, while boys have (American) football in the fall. Both draw from the potential pool of soccer players in US middle and high schools.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#144

Post by musicale »

Detrytus wrote: post #132
confidantlake wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are overlooking the more obvious answer. All the talent gets sucked up by the nfl/nba/mlb.

Well, nfl/nba are focused on big guys, 6’3 and above. In soccer your height/mass doesn’t matter much so the talent pools don’t overlap. And baseball is the old man’s game that does not require any athleticism at all.

As you indicate the most popular (and generally highest paying) professional sports in the US are football, basketball and baseball.

This includes college football and basketball, which are part of the career path for those sports.

Women's soccer is relatively popular, however.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#145

Post by dfxm12 »

Marsymars wrote: post #130
alex0015 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I know to write about here is China: school is one massive obstacle for professional sports. Lots of kids in China try out tons of different hobbies and sports, and any sport or activity you can think of likely has a number of clubs in bigger cities, enough to create a community of people with a serious interest. I'm thinking of Chinese kids I know personally who are into football, breakdancing, archery, ballet,…

Any insight into why China does relatively well at the Olympics?

A documentary, maybe it was China Heavyweight (which is maybe 15yo at this point, so it might be out of date today), suggested that kids are trained for many years for specific Olympic sports (and nothing else) based on their rough physical attributes. This shotgun approach has success at finding great individual athletes, and will probably ensure they have a reasonable chance at qualifying someone at as many events as possible. Maybe this is just how the boxing program is run though...

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#146

Post by lesuorac »

dlcarrier wrote: post #110
bitmasher9 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's nearly impossible for even a star athlete to succeed at more than one sport

I don't think this means as much as you're putting weight into.

I think the fact that somebody like MJ or Tim Tebow could even get a try-out in a different profession sports really speaks to top level talent being fungible. Like just imagine somebody practices being a Doctor for 20+ years and then gets an interview to be a World Cup Referee. Sure, they might not succeed at the other sport but the fact they can still do it is I think proof of sports fungibility.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#147

Post by hunterpayne »

Detrytus wrote: post #132
confidantlake wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are overlooking the more obvious answer. All the talent gets sucked up by the nfl/nba/mlb.

Well, nfl/nba are focused on big guys, 6’3 and above. In soccer your height/mass doesn’t matter much so the talent pools don’t overlap. And baseball is the old man’s game that does not require any athleticism at all.

The average NFL CB is the same size as a striker, but quicker and faster. And it isn't even all that close. Its the living and breathing soccer that matters. In those places, the best athletes play soccer. In the US, they play football or basketball. And if you think you can do anything at a pro level without extreme levels of athleticism, you are greatly deluded.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#148

Post by majormajor »

Detrytus wrote: post #132
confidantlake wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are overlooking the more obvious answer. All the talent gets sucked up by the nfl/nba/mlb.

Well, nfl/nba are focused on big guys, 6’3 and above. In soccer your height/mass doesn’t matter much so the talent pools don’t overlap. And baseball is the old man’s game that does not require any athleticism at all.

Lotta roles for fast smaller guys in NFL and MLB, so there's certainly competition.

Beaten-to-death takes about baseball and athleticism aside, if a kid shows potential there it's a great path to follow:

- some of the highest individual salaries and (to date) least restrictions on team spending

- it's very very very easy for individual talent to stand out at basically every position; this can be harder in football and various levels especially for non-QB positions

But once you're on the baseball path you're not gonna be training a skillset that would have much overlap with a soccer skillset.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#149

Post by hunterpayne »

otherme123 wrote: post #46
SamBam wrote: post #19

I 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…

> Finally, a good European player doesn't necessarily head to college. They may be playing for a serious club team at 18 or 19. My guess is that less than 5% of european soccer players ever set a foot in College, at least in the biggest Leagues (UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany). I only know two: Lampard and Iniesta. There might be a few more, but they are oddities. If anything, a good player and good student usu…

Try joining a serious club between 12 to 14. Most soccer players that turn pro left school years ago. Sports and education aren't linked outside of the US.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#150

Post by dfxm12 »

jppope wrote: post #78

The 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.

It's slightly more than that. These sports (and let's include hockey, since it's played widely intentionally too) are all organized the same way, meaning the players are largely trained the same way leading up to college and also in the pros. There's a clear pipeline to the basketball and hockey national teams. The best league is the one closest to home. The uniform pipeline and playing close to home makes training for, coaching and playing with the national team that much easier, which makes the team that much better.

American men gotta find their own way to become a world class soccer player. There's no pipeline like there is for the big 4. It's harder for teammates to gel when some went through the ranks in Germany, some in England, some in Italy and have only a few weeks with a new coach to buy into the system.

America's biggest rivals also aren't very good. So while the best European and South American teams constantly have to play each other and fight for survival, the US has to play middling teams like Mexico and Canada and tiny Central American and island nations.

Post reply on HN