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

161–170 of 280 posts

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

#161

Post by dlcarrier »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #126
dlcarrier wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think that fully aligns with my observations. The US outputs plenty of star athletes in minor sports. Swimming, boxing, gymnastics, etc. It’s not all incentives like the mythical economic rational actor, especially when we’re talking about choices adolescents are making. I think there is a more self selection process happening for athletes and sports. People with natural athletic inclinations try lots of spor…

No one in any country is going to be a famous athlete for swimming, boxing, gymnastics, etc., so they're all competing against athletes that are also competing in that sport for the love of the sport, whereas someone playing whichever sport is called football in that country has a chance of becoming a famous athlete.

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

#162

Post by majormajor »

surgical_fire wrote: post #156
majormajor wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseball obviously has high popularity in a substantial number of non-US countries, though the main ones that feed the MLB (the DR, Venezuela, and Cuba) aren't often top-of-mind countries for many. The Japan/Korea interest is obviously non-trivial too. Basketball is the obvious one you're leaving out that's about the same age as Volleyball (itself a US team sport), and probably has the most international popularity -…

The thing about basketball is that it is typically not a sport where it's a primary interest. Go to places where you find good Basketball players. Germany, former Yugoslavian countries, Spain, Argentina... All those places are primarily Football countries. You will find a few people interested in the sport, some youngster might be playing it for fun, but still very much behind football. It's just not comparable.

That's... very American of it, still? The idea of a single sport in a country is weird and silly from a US point of view. I'm more interested in hockey, why would anyone think that would make me not a fan of basketall or football or baseball?

But... so? I thought we were talking about if these sports had "nearly no popularity"? Not if they were displacing soccer entirely. "Nearly no popularity" is pretty obviously false based on eyeballs and sales, even if soccer is more popular... And there's a lot more countries and people in the world than just Europe. (But also very American of you to ignore them ;) .) How much would it even matter to the NBA if China is or isn't primarily a basketball country, or just a country with hundreds of millions of fans that also have another sport above it in their personal rankings, if they're making money either way?

EDIT: and of course the name "soccer" originated in England because there were multiple foot-related games and so people made a more specific name. So maybe the weird countries are the ones that lost a fun multi-sport ecosystem and ended up a monoculture...

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

#163

Post by dlcarrier »

lesuorac wrote: post #146
dlcarrier wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Re…

It's not that top athlete's aren't well above average in a sport that they didn't dedicate their life to, it's that without that dedication they don't have a chance of being a top athlete in that sport that disincentivizes potential athletes from training in multiple sports.

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

#164

Post by neves »

surgical_fire wrote: post #69
drewmate wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is basically true for most other sports in the US too, and yet there are still high-level Americans. Certainly baseball (which other countries do still play in a limited fashion), hockey and football. With football we are undisputed world champs for the last 60 years! Joking aside, there is no doubt that high-level NFL players are seriously talented and their whole sport revolves around structured practices…

The thing is that the US team sports you can think of such Baseball or American Football, have nearly no popularity outside of the US. Maybe Baseball in places like Japan or Venezuela. Maybe the only parallel to soccer I can think of is sports like Rugby in UK and some English-speaking countries, Cricket in India, and some sports endemic to countries (such as GAA in Ireland). The best way to compare the US to other c…

Baseball appeal in a country is always a history lesson. You can measure how a country was fucked up by USA based in their love of baseball: - Cuba - Japan - Panama - Venezuela

No other country can like a sport this boring.

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

#165

Post by dogmatism »

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…

> college (maybe on a scholarship but maybe not--again, pay to play), plays for the varsity team a few times a week during the season

wtaf? Do you really think this is the reality?

Also, now with NIL etc, college soccer is essentially another international semi-pro league

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

#166

Post by theklub »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #137
misterinfo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my high school and college, the best athletes were playing Football or basketball not soccer. If some of those athletic running backs were playing soccer all their life they would've been a problem.

The physical attributes needed for soccer are quite different from football or basketball. I don't think any football or basketball players would be good at soccer even if they tried.

Lebron as a goalie? Or hell half the nba...

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

#167

Post by dfxm12 »

halJordan wrote: post #32
reenorap wrote: post #25

The insane level of flopping with no dignity or shame, and the insane level of allowing this to happen without any penalties is one of the biggest reasons why I don’t watch soccer. Those in charge WANT soccer players to flop but I don’t understand why. It’s dishonorable and weak but the sport does nothing to stop it. Another reason is that the best American athletes will go to the sport that pays the most and soccer…

Gamesmanship in soccer is not more egregious than in say basketball. If you look at the nonsense ronnie coleman did in his day you wouldn't be complaining about soccer players

Ronnie Coleman, the bodybuilder?

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

#168

Post by dogmatism »

SamBam wrote: post #74
hawaiianbrah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe most of what you said, but no college varsity player is playing only a few times a week. Even the lowest division of NCAA teams would have practice or matches 5-6 times a week in season.

So leaving aside whether 5-6 times is "a few," the bigger issue is the length of the season. Varsity soccer season in the US is usually just four months, August-November. Spring season (with no games) is February-April. During that season, NCAA places strict limitations on how often teams can practice: Division I and II teams are allowed only up to 8 hours per week, with just 4 of those being coach-supervised! [1] Fi…

[dead]

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

#169

Post by leoc »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #154
hunterpayne wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The amount of distance covered in a soccer game is twice that of a cornerback in an NFL game. Unlike NFL, soccer also has very limited substitutions so you can't readily swap in fresh legs. An athlete needs to be able to go the full distance at a high level. A natural cornerback isn't going to be "quicker and faster" over that many miles without a different kind of conditioning that probably favors different genetics…

Additionally, a top-division European soccer team also typically plays something like 34 or 38 league games every season, and that doesn’t include things like domestic cups and European competition.

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

#170

Post by bilbo0s »

toast0 wrote: post #125
Qem wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 makesh…

A sturdy stick makes a decent enough baseball bat if you're hitting a light enough ball. It you can scrounge up a tennis ball, they work pretty well for street baseball. Don't need gloves, bases can be whatever you can agree on. Of course, it you have something vaguely soccerball shaped, you can play kickball with improvised bases rather than playing soccer.

>A sturdy stick makes a decent enough baseball bat

Right around the 80’s and 90’s the idea of zero-tolerance youth crime policies swept the US. Right around the same time the popularity of baseball began a decline in the US. It went from being a universally played ‘pickup culture’ sport, to a sparsely played ‘pay to play’ sport.

Now I’m not gonna say the need for 8 or 9 boys to roam around a neighborhood with a giant stick looking for a place to play was the reason the ‘pickup culture’ games died. But I will say that it was probably a lot safer for those boys to just go to a basketball court and wait their turn in a ‘pickup culture’ game that did not require a giant stick or bat.

Post reply on HN