Is US Mens/Boys Soccer Dead or Dying

[Mosafie]

Why play soccer if you can play American football, baseball, or basketball?

Other countries simply don't have the competition from other sport that America has. American pro soccer players make peanuts compared to other sports. Most Americans can't name a single US born soccer player.

You have to ask if the very best male American athletes actual play soccer.

When the average D1 football player now makes over $100k in NIL and soccer players have to beg to even get tuition it's tough to ignore. It's going to get even worse soon.

The women don't have to compete with American football and benefit from Title IX.

The mens are screwed. It's expensive to play as a youth. High school soccer sucks. College opportunities are gone. Pro opportunities are few.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

That might be funniest thing I've read in a long while. What sports are the "athletes" choosing? American Football? Basketball? Both those sports have unique physical requirements that limit who can actually play them. I don't think that is athlete vs non-athlete. Are there some players from those sports that could be good soccer players? Sure....but definitely not that 350lb lineman or that 7'2 center.

Your absolutely wild if you think the most athletic males in the united states are choosing soccer as their main sport. Absolutely wild. Are you even from the united states? Ever heard of baseball? There's no way you possibly grew up in the United States. There's just no way.

 

[NorCalDad]

Your absolutely wild if you think the most athletic males in the united states are choosing soccer as their main sport. Absolutely wild. Are you even from the united states? Ever heard of baseball? There's no way you possibly grew up in the United States. There's just no way.

You think baseball players are athletes? I played baseball and soccer through HS. I can assure you baseball players have nothing on soccer players when it comes to athleticism. The vast majority of baseball players couldn't handle the physical/technical demands of soccer. It's not even close. So, sure, a lot of kids go on and play baseball.....but some also go on and play golf. It's all the same to me. Soccer in the US isn't losing out because of baseball.

 

[Grace T.]

You think baseball players are athletes? I played baseball and soccer through HS. I can assure you baseball players have nothing on soccer players when it comes to athleticism. The vast majority of baseball players couldn't handle the physical/technical demands of soccer. It's not even close. So, sure, a lot of kids go on and play baseball.....but some also go on and play golf. It's all the same to me. Soccer in the US isn't losing out because of baseball.

I have to second this. My kid was in a trial at a park this last weekend. I was walking the park which had a club baseball tournament going on. Given I had nothing better to do, I stopped to watch a couple games, There were some athletic kids there, but no one out there but very few that could run track or play at wide receiver. There was also an unusually high amount of fat kids, the kind you in goal when the younger boys compete in soccer...no doubt an advantage in bat strength. Not sure what the level was....it was definitely club definitely higher than rec. But it's not like I sat there wondering, if only these kids would play soccer. I'm sure they are athletic when it comes to hand eye coordination but we aren't missing a whole lot that can run around an hour and a half trying to kick a ball.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

You think baseball players are athletes? I played baseball and soccer through HS. I can assure you baseball players have nothing on soccer players when it comes to athleticism. The vast majority of baseball players couldn't handle the physical/technical demands of soccer. It's not even close. So, sure, a lot of kids go on and play baseball.....but some also go on and play golf. It's all the same to me. Soccer in the US isn't losing out because of baseball.

That isn't the argument at all. Who knows what actually requires more athleticism. Reasonable people can disagree, depending on what they define as athleticism. What can't be debated is whether a random kid in the US is going to choose to play baseball as their favorite/primary sport or soccer. Guess what - soccer isn't likely to win out when compared directly with quite a few other options that the kids have.

 

[Scrub It Kook]

I have to second this. My kid was in a trial at a park this last weekend. I was walking the park which had a club baseball tournament going on. Given I had nothing better to do, I stopped to watch a couple games, There were some athletic kids there, but no one out there but very few that could run track or play at wide receiver. There was also an unusually high amount of fat kids, the kind you in goal when the younger boys compete in soccer...no doubt an advantage in bat strength. Not sure what the level was....it was definitely club definitely higher than rec. But it's not like I sat there wondering, if only these kids would play soccer. I'm sure they are athletic when it comes to hand eye coordination but we aren't missing a whole lot that can run around an hour and a half trying to kick a ball.

this 100%. I went to watch a friends kid play in a baseball tournament recently. They are at a moderately high level for 15U in Orange County. I was amazed at how unathletic a lot of them were and how slow they were running the 80 feet to 1st base. It was clear the team was built around strength & power for batting, not necessarily 'athleticism'.

 

[Grace T.]

That isn't the argument at all. Who knows what actually requires more athleticism. Reasonable people can disagree, depending on what they define as athleticism. What can't be debated is whether a random kid in the US is going to choose to play baseball as their favorite/primary sport or soccer. Guess what - soccer isn't likely to win out when compared directly with quite a few other options that the kids have.

The question isn't whether it requires "more athleticism". Even the fat baseball kids were clearly skilled enough to have advanced to the club level. The question is what type of athleticism and is it transferable. You are both right. The pool of available talent is taken up by kids deciding to play other sports. A guard in basketball might make a great center back in soccer. But it's not 1:1...the fat baseball kid isn't missing out in soccer, neither is the 260 lineman, nor the hulking basketball center (except maybe in goal) Socal has a Latino population on par with the population of Panama....soccer is the No1 pasttime for many Latinos, most of whom are too short for basketball, too slender for football, and for whom baseball is a secondary concern and no ice for hockey....why is crossing the border leading to such a dearth in talent?

 

[NorCalDad]

That isn't the argument at all. Who knows what actually requires more athleticism. Reasonable people can disagree, depending on what they define as athleticism. What can't be debated is whether a random kid in the US is going to choose to play baseball as their favorite/primary sport or soccer. Guess what - soccer isn't likely to win out when compared directly with quite a few other options that the kids have.

This was the statement "If your BOY is good at sports and is an athlete they are not choosing soccer." I'm saying the kids that choose to play baseball, in most case, lack the necessary athleticism to play competitive soccer. I think it's great those kids have something to play in the same way I think it's great all sports exist. They're choosing baseball because they're not good enough to play soccer.

Volume of players is not the issue. Go to any ECNL/GA/MLS Next showcase, we have more than enough kids playing soccer.

 

[Grace T.]

Volume of players is not the issue. Go to any ECNL/GA/MLS Next showcase, we have more than enough kids playing soccer.

All those kids aren't in academies. Their 5-7 hours of training (higher end if private trainers) isn't going to compete against kids doing it 20 hours a week, who have started at age 6-7. They don't count. The pool on the boys side is the academies and a handful of other teams. On the girls, a handful of ECNL teams.

 

[Karlton Athletic]

I think you may be misunderstanding my bet. Not who they think best 5 pro athletes are. Who are the best 5th-grade boy athletes in their class.

Yeah, I did misunderstand… but I’d still standby my statement, again with the disclaimer that both my boys are at middle school, not Hs: Most of the medalists (on the boys side) at the track and field days have been soccer players.

Now, that might change once they hit HS, given the hype around football, of course.

 

[KingMI]

Yeah, I did misunderstand… but I’d still standby my statement, again with the disclaimer that both my boys are at middle school, not Hs: Most of the medalists (on the boys side) at the track and field days have been soccer players.

Now, that might change once they hit HS, given the hype around football, of course.

Eventually the boys play what they are best at. Soccer players have very good speed on average so they do well in track and field at that age. Once high school starts, the body types start to develop and we find out who is who and should play what sport.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

Regardless of whatever athleticism is required to play the sport of soccer what I'm saying is if a kid has a chance to make a career out of sports in America and lets say they could be successful at the sport of Soccer they are definitely not saying hey let me focus on this sport and let this be my sport. I never said you need to be more athletic to play baseball. The issue with this is your not going to get the very best of American boys that play sports playing soccer. It blows mw away that is being argued but hey that's what these message boards are for!!!

 

[Mosafie]

My nephew was an exceptional striker. He played MLS Next. He was offered a spot on LAFC. He would have easily played D1 soccer.

He dropped soccer and became a football Wide Receiver. He later signed with a D1 program with a nice NIL offer. He's an engineering major with a free education and income potential higher than most Pro US soccer players.

This was the statement "If your BOY is good at sports and is an athlete they are not choosing soccer." I'm saying the kids that choose to play baseball, in most case, lack the necessary athleticism to play competitive soccer. I think it's great those kids have something to play in the same way I think it's great all sports exist. They're choosing baseball because they're not good enough to play soccer.

Volume of players is not the issue. Go to any ECNL/GA/MLS Next showcase, we have more than enough kids playing soccer.

Baseball has very unique skills set. Lots of kids can play it but very few are pro level. Also highest paid pro salary in the US.

 

[NorCalDad]

All those kids aren't in academies. Their 5-7 hours of training (higher end if private trainers) isn't going to compete against kids doing it 20 hours a week, who have started at age 6-7. They don't count. The pool on the boys side is the academies and a handful of other teams. On the girls, a handful of ECNL teams.

Top ECNL/GA/MLSN teams are doing 4x2hour team sessions a week. The players are then expected to do training on their own, which is likely an additional 4 hours. So it's more like 12 hours a week. Your point is still valid though.

 

[Grace T.]

Top ECNL/GA/MLSN teams are doing 4x2hour team sessions a week. The players are then expected to do training on their own, which is likely an additional 4 hours. So it's more like 12 hours a week. Your point is still valid though.

The girls are practicing 2 hour sessions? In Los Angeles both boys ecnl and non academy mlsn it tends to be 1.5 hours. Three reasons: field rentals are typically in increments of 3 hours (generally divided among 4 teams assuming they are fortunate enough to get half fields….some teams like tfa even at mlsn level are sometimes in a public park), players are commuting long distances and need to be able to get there with Youngers going earlier because of bed times, the coaching training generally divides the escalating increments in 4 sections so the ideal session is taught at 1.5 hours. The times I’ve seen/heard about teams going 4 hrs is when they add a half hour conditioning before hand.
Ps this is also a source of complaint by the nondresser/reserve players on the top team that are supposed to get their game time at ea, ndl, or now mls2. Their 1.5 hour session turns into a 3 hour one unless the club arranges for both teams to train together. But that has some resistance because God forbid the second team gets access to the secret higher team training or the first team members pick up second team bad habits

 

[NorCalDad]

The girls are practicing 2 hour sessions? In Los Angeles both boys ecnl and non academy mlsn it tends to be 1.5 hours. Three reasons: field rentals are typically in increments of 3 hours (generally divided among 4 teams assuming they are fortunate enough to get half fields….some teams like tfa even at mlsn level are sometimes in a public park), players are commuting long distances and need to be able to get there with Youngers going earlier because of bed times, the coaching training generally divides the escalating increments in 4 sections so the ideal session is taught at 1.5 hours. The times I’ve seen/heard about teams going 4 hrs is when they add a half hour conditioning before hand.
Ps this is also a source of complaint by the nondresser/reserve players on the top team that are supposed to get their game time at ea, ndl, or now mls2. Their 1.5 hour session turns into a 3 hour one unless the club arranges for both teams to train together. But that has some resistance because God forbid the second team gets access to the secret higher team training or the first team members pick up second team bad habits

Yeah definitely the case up here. A lot of the clubs will also train on weekends when there are no games. It's not ALL the MLSN/GA/ECNL clubs, but definitely the more competitive ones. Field space is a challenge up here as well. Perhaps you've identified one of the core issues -- field space. I'm sure all those SoCal clubs would love to be doing 4 x 2 hour sessions a week. But nonetheless -- most players on top flight teams U14 and older are putting a lot of time in....probably not 20 hours....but in the 10-15 range.

 

[NorCalDad]

Regardless of whatever athleticism is required to play the sport of soccer what I'm saying is if a kid has a chance to make a career out of sports in America and lets say they could be successful at the sport of Soccer they are definitely not saying hey let me focus on this sport and let this be my sport. I never said you need to be more athletic to play baseball. The issue with this is your not going to get the very best of American boys that play sports playing soccer. It blows mw away that is being argued but hey that's what these message boards are for!!!

What I'm saying is I don't think there's an athlete drain -- the athletes are there in soccer. Again just go to any showcase/national tournament. There's a boat load of athletes. I think the issue lies elsewhere -- coaching, field time, player identification, culture..etc...

 

[watfly]

In Southern California, the majority of the best athletes are playing soccer until high school. The cream of the crop that still have the passion, like academy kids, continue to play soccer. The other best athletes move on to other sports. There is plenty of critical mass of great athletes that continue with soccer, but our system and coaching fails them. Let's also not confuse quantity of training with quality.

I've said this before, youth soccer is the best training for high school football. You can't recreate the footwork learned playing soccer with football drills.

 

[Code]

Not true. Again looking at any clubs boy top team and compare it to their third team. The main difference you’ll see is the top team is simply taller. The reason is it takes the zebras a long time to develop that skill. But early on in a pro rel environment there are several short cuts to winning: don’t build from the back, outrun the defenders, esp if they can’t head it put the ball in the air, hit it over the goalkeeper. The giraffes can use these cheat codes to win, the giraffes get recruited to the top team, the giraffes develop due to the favorability shown top teams, the zebras never develop their skill.

Are you saying the first team players don't have soccer skills? You are really trying to argue that the third teams have better skills, but can't beat the first team because they are tall?

 

[Code]

Nope, but half-skilled Giraffes will, or maybe the better analogy is half-skilled Elephants.

Our issue is not so much skill, but mostly soccer IQ. Our coaches will always pick the biggest and fastest kids over the soccer IQ kids, because they think they can teach the bigger/faster kids soccer IQ, which is often not the reality. We don't treat soccer in the US as a decision making sport. You can have all the skills in the world, but if you don't make the right decisions those skills are worthless. I'm personally tired of seeing our top teams dribble into traffic, not move off the ball and make low percentage passes.

If pro/rel was on the table, coaches could not rely on the tall kids size, and the old kick and run strategy. The player's Knowledge, Skills, and Ability would be the primary factor for team selection, for club development, and for individual development. Clubs that don't develop well rounded players would be relegated out of exsistence. While those who succeed would grow.

 

[Grace T.]

Are you saying the first team players don't have soccer skills? You are really trying to argue that the third teams have better skills, but can't beat the first team because they are tall?

Depends on the age and the other variable is time in the system as to how much but yes at time point naught I’m saying tall and fast > soccer skills because soccer skills are almost nil The balance shifts over time but it’s still a huge advantage. There is an entire chapter in soccernomics on the subject.