Will the USA become a top football team?

The USA national team seems to be at an all time high qualifying for the 06 world cup the 10 world cup and is on track to qualify for the 14 world cup.

The MLS also seems to be a growing league attracting big name stars and is being broadcasted worldwide including the UK.

The number of players eligible for the US national team who play in the MLS is at 55% (the number of english players in the EPL is 30%).

Does anyone else think that the US national team over the next 5-10 years will become a recognised top 10 world team due to the increasing strength of the MLS and the high percentage of Americans playing in the MLS?

In a word. No, but they have potential to be better than England

They also qualified for 98 and 02 after hosting 94. You can't simply say no after looking at how far they've come so quickly compared to nations who have been playing professionally for longer.

They are a decent side capable of causing an upset.
 
They have a easyish group.
Mexico decent
Costa Rica
Jamaica
Panama
Cant remember who else.
 
They are always going to qualify.
 
Yes I'm  sure they're improving every year.
Can see them becoming a top 10 side.

Doubt it. They have an easy qualifying group as westisbest mentioned, so will nearly always qualify for the world cup.

I guess they'll stick to what they know, ie, baseball gridiron etc.

Stella wrote:Doubt it. They have an easy qualifying group as westisbest mentioned, so will nearly always qualify for the world cup.

I guess they'll stick to what they know, ie, baseball gridiron etc.

It doesn't matter about how easy their group is what matters is that they are at the world cup every tournament which means more public interest in football and of course more funding and more sponsorship etc.

Also the MLS is becoming a major football league world wide with a lot of money being pumped into it. 55% of players in tthe MLS are american so the MLS will benefit the american antional team.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Doubt it. They have an easy qualifying group as westisbest mentioned, so will nearly always qualify for the world cup.

I guess they'll stick to what they know, ie, baseball gridiron etc.

It doesn't matter about how easy their group is what matters is that they are at the world cup every tournament which means more public interest in football and of course more funding and more sponsorship etc.

Also the MLS is becoming a major football league world wide with a lot of money being pumped into it. 55% of players in tthe MLS are american so the MLS will benefit the american antional team.

Fair enough.

Still think your typical American will have a few other sports over 'soccer' at least whilst I'm alive.

Stella wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Doubt it. They have an easy qualifying group as westisbest mentioned, so will nearly always qualify for the world cup.

I guess they'll stick to what they know, ie, baseball gridiron etc.

It doesn't matter about how easy their group is what matters is that they are at the world cup every tournament which means more public interest in football and of course more funding and more sponsorship etc.

Also the MLS is becoming a major football league world wide with a lot of money being pumped into it. 55% of players in tthe MLS are american so the MLS will benefit the american antional team.

Fair enough.

Still think your typical American will have a few other sports over 'soccer' at least whilst I'm alive.

True but that may change, the MLS has already overtaken the NBA and the hockey league in terms of average attendance.

Is that due to the indoor arena's not being able to house as many people? I bet 100,000 would turn up to see a NBA game if their was a stadium big enough.

Stella wrote:Is that due to the indoor arena's not being able to house as many people? I bet 100,000 would turn up to see a NBA game if their was a stadium big enough.

Most NBA areans are about 20,000 but there is a problem in the US that NBA teaams can't fill out their stadiums.

According to ESPN statistics, the Pistons are averaging 13,272 tickets sold per home game, and they play in the 21,000-seat Palace arena. The Pistons are hardly the only team finding it difficult to attract fans. To boost attendance, the Milwaukee Bucks (fourth-worst in league attendance) have been hosting promotions like “Buck Night,” when tickets for kids 14 and under are $1, and hot dogs sell for just $1 as well.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

half the league averages about 80% attendance and some even have attendance in the 70 and 60% which is incredibly low when you consider the stadiums are so small.

the MLS in terms of total attendance is the 7th most popular league in the world in terms of total fans attending and is above the english championship in terms of average attendance.

The MLS is the 3rd most attended sport in america behind American football and Baseball in terms of average attendance. But the MLS in 2012 had an increaase of attendaance of + 935 which was the highest increase of any US sport.

Your figures surprise me. I suppose all things considered then there is a chance they could become a 'proper' top ten team. I say proper as the world rankings once had them in the top ten from what I recall.

TBH, there have been a few American players in the EPL over the years and none have had great techniques, a bit like us  

There are some states where football (soccer) is really popular, and others where it is considered alien.
I remember watching one MLS game last season and was surprised how passionate the fans were.
With its large population and growing latin community, I think the future of soccer in the US is pretty bright.
I've also been impressed with how the national side has played over the past decade (reaching the knockout stages in 2 out of the last 3 world cups).
They also play some pretty good, attacking football.

Things are improving over there, obviously Beckham had some effect n having european players going over there, albeit, at the end of their careers is still going to enhance the game. I think one day they will be quite a strong side, it only takes one generation, sometime down the line, like Belgium for instance, for them to suddenly be a force of some kind. Could be 10 years or 50 who know but it will happen. Too big a population pool for it not to.

'Soccer' is getting more popular because it's the one kids in America are taught to play first because it requires very little equipment unlike American Football and Baseball, all it needs is a ball really, so more and more kids are ending up liking it more now as it's the first sport they experience.

I would also agree that wit America's rising Latin population the growth of football will expand and become popular.

There was a poll which listed Messi as the 16th most popular sports person in the USA and Ronaldo at 24 so the foundations and support is there.

I would also agree that football is more popular in certain states, usually those with a high latin community.

Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

Stella wrote:Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

well the MLS has only been running since 92 and the league looks very stable and is attracting very good talent so that is why over the past 15/20 years football in america has boomed.

Also with the latin population and influence you get the popularity and demand needed to get the good infrastructure. But I would argue the MLS already has the good infrastructure.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

well the MLS has only been running since 92 and the league looks very stable and is attracting very good talent so that is why over the past 15/20 years football in america has boomed.

Also with the latin population and influence you get the popularity and demand needed to get the good infrastructure. But I would argue the MLS already has the good infrastructure.

You're probably right. I really don't know. 50 years ago, England would have pooped all over some teams, which today are better or close to us. Reckon we have stagnated whilst the others have risen.

Stella wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

well the MLS has only been running since 92 and the league looks very stable and is attracting very good talent so that is why over the past 15/20 years football in america has boomed.

Also with the latin population and influence you get the popularity and demand needed to get the good infrastructure. But I would argue the MLS already has the good infrastructure.

You're probably right. I really don't know. 50 years ago, England would have pooped all over some teams, which today are better or close to us. Reckon we have stagnated whilst the others have risen.

My personal opinion is that the EPL is all about making money and thus you have teams who would rather buy a french 17 year old then recruit a local english player.

30% of the epl players are english compared to 50% in the german league etc.

Not really. The reality is its never going to crack the top 3, and wont get the necessary funding

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

well the MLS has only been running since 92 and the league looks very stable and is attracting very good talent so that is why over the past 15/20 years football in america has boomed.

Also with the latin population and influence you get the popularity and demand needed to get the good infrastructure. But I would argue the MLS already has the good infrastructure.

You're probably right. I really don't know. 50 years ago, England would have pooped all over some teams, which today are better or close to us. Reckon we have stagnated whilst the others have risen.

My personal opinion is that the EPL is all about making money and thus you have teams who would rather buy a french 17 year old then recruit a local english player.

30% of the epl players are english compared to 50% in the german league etc.

Not sure it's as simple as that. We didn't qualify for the 74 and 78 world cups, yet our league was mostly English, with a few other brits in tow. Regarding the EPL. Our players seem to be over priced (Carroll, Henderson) and from a few years back, Kevin Davies (£7.5m), so it's logical to go and get a proven international for the same price.

GSC wrote:Not really. The reality is its never going to crack the top 3, and wont get the necessary funding

?

Stella wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Wasn't soccer big in America in the 70's, when Pele and Best were there? Popularity, population and latin influence is fine, but you need a good infrastructure.

well the MLS has only been running since 92 and the league looks very stable and is attracting very good talent so that is why over the past 15/20 years football in america has boomed.

Also with the latin population and influence you get the popularity and demand needed to get the good infrastructure. But I would argue the MLS already has the good infrastructure.

You're probably right. I really don't know. 50 years ago, England would have pooped all over some teams, which today are better or close to us. Reckon we have stagnated whilst the others have risen.

My personal opinion is that the EPL is all about making money and thus you have teams who would rather buy a french 17 year old then recruit a local english player.

30% of the epl players are english compared to 50% in the german league etc.

Not sure it's as simple as that. We didn't qualify for the 74 and 78 world cups, yet our league was mostly English, with a few other brits in tow. Regarding the EPL. Our players seem to be over priced (Carroll, Henderson) and from a few years back, Kevin Davies (£7.5m), so it's logical to go and get a proven international for the same price.

I would argue that english players are not over priced more like epl players are overpriced.

But an english player will sell more shirts in the premier league hence why they cost more because there will be more shirt sales and more sponsorsip deals etc

I would argue that english players are not over priced more like epl players are overpriced.

Possibly, but you can buy say a Swedish international defender for peanuts compared to the Cahill's of this world.

Some of the Spanish lads have got huge price tags. Maybe more on  the fact Spain are blo.dy good rather than the player being worth £30m.

Stella wrote:I would argue that english players are not over priced more like epl players are overpriced.

Possibly, but you can buy say a Swedish international defender for peanuts compared to the Cahill's of this world.

Some of the Spanish lads have got huge price tags. Maybe more on  the fact Spain are blo.dy good rather than the player being worth £30m.

I think it is more complicated than just nationality. English players seem over priced but the price is high because they have premier league experience, sell shirts because they are english and more sponsorship and also the english players are being sold from one english club to another english club and that puts the price up. Also in most cases the english player is the star player (eg carroll for newcastle) so the selling team will only sale for a high price.

The same can be said for spanish players being sold in spain to other spanish clubs. Sergio Ramos as a 19 year old was sold for £27 million (yes he turned out great but at the time madrid was criticised for spending so much money on a rookie who had only played 1 season in la liga).

barcelona spent 40 million on David villa from valencia who only played 75 games in 3 years before being offloaded for basically nothing. Also madrid spent 40 million on Isco this year.

David Villa was roundly considered one of the best strikers in the world.

Isco is a fast rising star who shone in Europe last season.

GSC wrote:David Villa was roundly considered one of the best strikers in the world.

Isco is a fast rising star who shone in Europe last season.

But 40 million for a guy who was 29 is a lot of money to spend.

Isco is considered a rising star but it is still 40 million for a guy who has shown potential only. Ozil in 2010 was considered a rising star and was the star man for germany at world cup 2010 yet he only cost 12 million.

highlights that spanish players are just as overpriced as english.

Madrid and Barca will nearly always pay over the odds. My original point was, you can't blame managers in the EPL going abroad, and that having more foreigners in our league is most likely not the reason why our national team isn't as strong as some.

Stella wrote:Madrid and Barca will nearly always pay over the odds. My original point was, you can't blame managers in the EPL going abroad, and that having more foreigners in our league is most likely not the reason why our national team isn't as strong as some.

It surely must have some negative affect.

What do you think is the main reason that the England national team appear to be 2nd class?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Stella wrote:Madrid and Barca will nearly always pay over the odds. My original point was, you can't blame managers in the EPL going abroad, and that having more foreigners in our league is most likely not the reason why our national team isn't as strong as some.

It surely must have some negative affect.

What do you think is the main reason that the England national team appear to be 2nd class?

TBH, not sure. Brining in the cheaper players from abroad won't help, but it's most likely down to coaching, poor management,/tactics, pride even. Some in the past like Carragher have preffered playing for their club than country and it wouldn't surprise me to hear one or two may think the same. Gets frustrating to see players like Gerrard and Lampard play well at times for England but not in the same manner as when they play for their clubs.

I was in Seattle on a match day this summer and it was a sell-out, city was packed, fans mingling, no hard feelings and a great atmosphere, so while the American national team may be as mediocre as a GB basketball team, they do have a lot of things about the MLS which can be seen as more positive than the British game (not that any of our national teams can ever be described as "top")

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:David Villa was roundly considered one of the best strikers in the world.

Isco is a fast rising star who shone in Europe last season.

But 40 million for a guy who was 29 is a lot of money to spend.

Isco is considered a rising star but it is still 40 million for a guy who has shown potential only. Ozil in 2010 was considered a rising star and was the star man for germany at world cup 2010 yet he only cost 12 million.

highlights that spanish players are just as overpriced as english.

Its better spent than 35m on Carroll.

Both were closer to 30m iirc

Ha ha Realist, how the devil are you?
 
Good time in the states, find yourself an american piece of ass?
 
I disagree re their qualifying group.
 
It does matter the easier it is, in terms of making it to world cups.
If they had an all americans qualification, USA would probably not qualify, due to there being better teams.

westisbest wrote:Ha ha Realist, how the devil are you?
 
Good time in the states, find yourself an american piece of ass?
 
I disagree re their qualifying group.
 
It does matter the easier it is, in terms of making it to world cups.
If they had an all americans qualification, USA would probably not qualify, due to there being better teams.

The point is not that how they qualify but the fact that they do qualify which adds public interest, more funding and more sponsorships etc.

The moment a top player goes there in there peak years i'll start to take the MLS seriously, Beckham, Keane and Henry all went over once their top level careers had pretty much ended. They offer good opportunities to the older players to earn good money before retirement but they still wont attract top quality foreign players because the champions league is too much of an attraction.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:David Villa was roundly considered one of the best strikers in the world.

Isco is a fast rising star who shone in Europe last season.

But 40 million for a guy who was 29 is a lot of money to spend.

Isco is considered a rising star but it is still 40 million for a guy who has shown potential only. Ozil in 2010 was considered a rising star and was the star man for germany at world cup 2010 yet he only cost 12 million.

highlights that spanish players are just as overpriced as english.

Every nation's top clubs pay top dollar for players of their own country, Munich did the same with 37m for Gotze.

Ozil also had one year left on his contract while Isco I think had a fair few years left on his, contract length and willingness to sell effects the price hugely.

Isco has hit the ground running for Madrid, 3 games, 3 goals & 1 assist. He's looking the Real (pun intended) deal.

Hero wrote:Isco has hit the ground running for Madrid, 3 games, 3 goals & 1 assist. He's looking the Real (pun intended) deal.

I agree, he seems to have had an amazing start. I really want Madrid to push barcelona this year

Does the MLS have to be particularly strong to result in a strong national team? The Brazilian and Argentine leagues aren't that strong and yet their national teams have always been strong. The Netherlands international team are still good now even though the Dutch league isn't much better than the MLS.

They really struggle bringing through players from the college system in USA, players who are good enough at 19/20 odd are stunted in their development due to not being eligble for the draft until 21 I think.

It's a problem they need to fix, and they want to get an academy system going in the US for it.

But it ain't breaking the monopoly American Football, Basketball and Baseball have over there. Ice Hockey as well. Not for a long time at least

What ever happened to Freddie Abu?

Was meant to be the next big thing a few years ago.

One player that looks good, from what i've seen is Chris Wondolowski.
He's 30, so this will be his last world cup, probably.

Latest FIFA rankings have the US four spots ahead of England.

Since the end of May, the US has lost two games and conceded 18 goals. England? No defeats, 6 goals conceded.

It's like when we moved up to third a little while back.

I swear they just randomly put teams where they feel like

Although the rankings often have  teams in inappropriate positions (i.e when England were third) I think it's now about right with England being at 17.

In absolute reality, they can never ever be considered better than 12th in the world, so anywhere between 12-18 represents realism, a solid but unremarkable position amongst second rate nations, even though some "worse" teams might be in front of them in individual ranking tables,  12th-18th would represent their deserved ranking. You can't expect any higher in all seriousness and you'd be fairly myopic to think otherwise.

Stella wrote:Is that due to the indoor arena's not being able to house as many people? I bet 100,000 would turn up to see a NBA game if their was a stadium big enough.

It will be due to the capacity. I don't know much about the NBA but NHL have a winter classic that sells out Heinz Field which is the Pittsburgh Steelers stadium

Basketball courts are tiny. Even if you could fit 100,000 round it, i.e the Nou Camp, 90,000 wouldn't see anything more than a few specks moving around a floor.