Is US Mens/Boys Soccer Dead or Dying

[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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

This is simply not true because if the cheat codes and how powerful they are. The reality is kick and run works to produce wins and parents don’t really care (for a variety of reasons) about development. Otherwise the market pre letter league would have supported a ton of development minded teams regardless of pro rel. it did not. The market in the old coast days favored the teams that won because they got promoted and access to the higher levels. We’ve seen how this plays out already in coast. We know how it works.

 

[Code]

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.

Well then you changed my analogy to fit your perspective. The point is a team of unskilled tall players will not beat a team skilled short players. Of course if you change it into a scenario where all the players are unskilled, size matters.

 

[Code]

This is simply not true because if the cheat codes and how powerful they are. The reality is kick and run works to produce wins and parents don’t really care (for a variety of reasons) about development. Otherwise the market pre letter league would have supported a ton of development minded teams regardless of pro rel. it did not. The market in the old coast days favored the teams that won because they got promoted and access to the higher levels. We’ve seen how this plays out already in coast. We know how it works.

Coast didn't work because the letter leagues took the top teams out of the Coast pro/rel system and placed them comfortably in a closed monopoly with no risk of relegation.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

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.

This is incredibly myopic. A whole bunch of kids are only choosing soccer if they're not good enough to play the more popular sports. Just like bowling, table-tennis, archery, horseshoes, and virtually any other competitive sport that exists out there - they exist because there are some people that enjoy them. Which is great! But for the vast majority of those activities - nobody cares much at all other than those few that are involved with them. In the US - it's been predetermined for decades from everything from which fields/courts/facilities to build at the high school level, up to the TV rights at the professional level - there are only a handful of widely supported, widely popular sports in the US. Some would argue that soccer is one of them. Other can make the case that it is a small fraction of interest, dollars, or grass-roots support compared to the others.

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.

Nobody cares about medalists at track and field days in middle school. In middle school already, but certainly by the time they get to high school - soccer players are up there with theater kids in terms of social cred. The cheerleaders are not going to swoon over the attacking mid (unless he also plays football or basketball), and nobody that's not on the team would be likely to even grasp that they are on the team.

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!!!

Of course you are correct. It's absurd to argue otherwise.

 

[Grace T.]

Well then you changed my analogy to fit your perspective. The point is a team of unskilled tall players will not beat a team skilled short players. Of course if you change it into a scenario where all the players are unskilled, size matters.

The question is how much. Again the answer in soccereconomics is “a lot”, in part because it compounds at naught (the taller kids get the benefit of being selected early on)

 

[Grace T.]

Coast didn't work because the letter leagues took the top teams out of the Coast pro/rel system and placed them comfortably in a closed monopoly with no risk of relegation.

Again when coast was up and running, people weren’t chasing the development minded teams. They were chasing the teams that won because those got promoted. Development with no wins means no promotion which means you lose the best players, rinse repeat.

 

[NorCalDad]

This is incredibly myopic. A whole bunch of kids are only choosing soccer if they're not good enough to play the more popular sports. Just like bowling, table-tennis, archery, horseshoes, and virtually any other competitive sport that exists out there - they exist because there are some people that enjoy them. Which is great! But for the vast majority of those activities - nobody cares much at all other than those few that are involved with them. In the US - it's been predetermined for decades from everything from which fields/courts/facilities to build at the high school level, up to the TV rights at the professional level - there are only a handful of widely supported, widely popular sports in the US. Some would argue that soccer is one of them. Other can make the case that it is a small fraction of interest, dollars, or grass-roots support compared to the others.



Nobody cares about medalists at track and field days in middle school. In middle school already, but certainly by the time they get to high school - soccer players are up there with theater kids in terms of social cred. The cheerleaders are not going to swoon over the attacking mid (unless he also plays football or basketball), and nobody that's not on the team would be likely to even grasp that they are on the team.



Of course you are correct. It's absurd to argue otherwise.

This thread's title is "Is US Mens/Boys Soccer Dead or Dying" where @watfly is asking about the low attendance numbers at the most recent USMNT match. The thread then started to pick apart this main question. Then out of the blue @SuperSoccerStar makes the claim that if your kid is good at sports and an athlete, they're not playing soccer. At face value this statement is absurd, as it's simply not true. But, let's step back for a moment and perhaps re-word the statement given the thread topic. This is just me speculating what perhaps @SuperSoccerStar may have actually meant given the context of the thread, "Interest and viewership/attendance of soccer in the US is low because more kids play other sports". This would be a much more reasonable statement given the thread topic. That said, it's still not true.

From: https://projectplay.org/youth-sports/facts/participation-rates



In fact, when you look at participation numbers for baseball for the ages of 6-12 compared to 13-17, the drop off is significant. Based on these numbers and the logic of the modified statement you would conclude basketball would be the most watched sport in the US. Of course it is not. So, my conclusion is youth sport participation has very little to do with sport interest/viewership. There are other reasons why this is happening.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Then out of the blue @SuperSoccerStar makes the claim that if your kid is good at sports and an athlete, they're not playing soccer. At face value this statement is absurd, as it's simply not true. But, let's step back for a moment and perhaps re-word the statement given the thread topic. This is just me speculating what perhaps @SuperSoccerStar may have actually meant given the context of the thread, "Interest and viewership/attendance of soccer in the US is low because more kids play other sports". This would be a much more reasonable statement given the thread topic. That said, it's still not true.

Maybe his statement was mildly hyperbolic - but there is more truth to it than you either understand or want to admit. No - it's not directly "if you're good you don't choose soccer" (and then having it pointed out that many objectively "good" kids do play soccer). It's that if you're exceptional among your peers at the younger age - you're much more likely to choose any other sport other than soccer. It is not the sport of choice. Does that mean that there aren't exceptional players choosing to play soccer? Of course not.

In fact, when you look at participation numbers for baseball for the ages of 6-12 compared to 13-17, the drop off is significant. Based on these numbers and the logic of the modified statement you would conclude basketball would be the most watched sport in the US. Of course it is not. So, my conclusion is youth sport participation has very little to do with sport interest/viewership. There are other reasons why this is happening.

Coming to the conclusion that the popularity of a sport (which influences how valuable it is, which is directly related to how many people are interested in it), has very little to do with how likely it is that a kid will want to play it - takes a mindboggling amount of willfulness to ignore the obvious.

 

[watfly]

This thread's title is "Is US Mens/Boys Soccer Dead or Dying" where @watfly is asking about the low attendance numbers at the most recent USMNT match. The thread then started to pick apart this main question. Then out of the blue @SuperSoccerStar makes the claim that if your kid is good at sports and an athlete, they're not playing soccer. At face value this statement is absurd, as it's simply not true. But, let's step back for a moment and perhaps re-word the statement given the thread topic. This is just me speculating what perhaps @SuperSoccerStar may have actually meant given the context of the thread, "Interest and viewership/attendance of soccer in the US is low because more kids play other sports". This would be a much more reasonable statement given the thread topic. That said, it's still not true.

From: https://projectplay.org/youth-sports/facts/participation-rates

View attachment 26528

In fact, when you look at participation numbers for baseball for the ages of 6-12 compared to 13-17, the drop off is significant. Based on these numbers and the logic of the modified statement you would conclude basketball would be the most watched sport in the US. Of course it is not. So, my conclusion is youth sport participation has very little to do with sport interest/viewership. There are other reasons why this is happening.

I'd be curious to see the numbers for California. I'd imagine they're much different.

 

[NorCalDad]

Maybe his statement was mildly hyperbolic - but there is more truth to it than you either understand or want to admit. No - it's not directly "if you're good you don't choose soccer" (and then having it pointed out that many objectively "good" kids do play soccer). It's that if you're exceptional among your peers at the younger age - you're much more likely to choose any other sport other than soccer. It is not the sport of choice. Does that mean that there aren't exceptional players choosing to play soccer? Of course not.

Ok, so let me understand this. Based on what you've said the statement could be "If your BOY is exceptionally good at sports and is an exceptional athlete, they're not choosing soccer". Is that more in line? I still think this is a silly statement and I'm not sure why you think it's obvious or what data you have to support it outside of an anecdote here and there. There are many exceptional athletes that choose soccer over other sports. This isn't one-sided.

But to get clarification, what are you arguing?

- That viewership/attendance for soccer is low due to youth sports participation rates

or

- The US isn't good at soccer because the best athletes aren't playing it

Coming to the conclusion that the popularity of a sport (which influences how valuable it is, which is directly related to how many people are interested in it), has very little to do with how likely it is that a kid will want to play it - takes a mindboggling amount of willfulness to ignore the obvious.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. My point was that youth sports participation rates do not correlate with viewership/attendance numbers. If it did, the NBA would be blowing the NFL out of the water on TV.

 

[whatithink]

Ok, so let me understand this. Based on what you've said the statement could be "If your BOY is exceptionally good at sports and is an exceptional athlete, they're not choosing soccer". Is that more in line? I still think this is a silly statement and I'm not sure why you think it's obvious or what data you have to support it outside of an anecdote here and there. There are many exceptional athletes that choose soccer over other sports. This isn't one-sided.

But to get clarification, what are you arguing?

- That viewership/attendance for soccer is low due to youth sports participation rates

or

- The US isn't good at soccer because the best athletes aren't playing it



I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. My point was that youth sports participation rates do not correlate with viewership/attendance numbers. If it did, the NBA would be blowing the NFL out of the water on TV.

Viewership and attendance are obv different things. MLS compares well with NBA & MLB for average attendance and is ahead of NHL. Obviously there are far more NBA and MLB games, and that would factor in.

TV viewership is different , are we talking viewership of soccer or MLS? I don't know the viewer numbers but $ wise MLS is getting $250M annually from Apple - as an aside, that's a stupid deal as it really hurts casual viewing etc. That's nothing like the NHL, NBA or MLB deals (not even going there with NHL), but it doesn't tell the full picture.
- NBC paid $2.7B for a six year deal for the EPL (only)
- CBS paid $1.5B for a six year deal with UEFA
and then there's all the other leagues.

There must be an audience for this or the TV companies would not be paying hundreds of millions annually to stream it.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Ok, so let me understand this. Based on what you've said the statement could be "If your BOY is exceptionally good at sports and is an exceptional athlete, they're not choosing soccer". Is that more in line? I still think this is a silly statement and I'm not sure why you think it's obvious or what data you have to support it outside of an anecdote here and there. There are many exceptional athletes that choose soccer over other sports. This isn't one-sided.

But to get clarification, what are you arguing?

- That viewership/attendance for soccer is low due to youth sports participation rates

or

- The US isn't good at soccer because the best athletes aren't playing it



I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. My point was that youth sports participation rates do not correlate with viewership/attendance numbers. If it did, the NBA would be blowing the NFL out of the water on TV.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to ignore the point, are being intellectually dishonest, or really aren't getting it.

Soccer is not the sport of choice in the US for the best athletes or anyone else. It is not one of the most popular sports. It isn't the one that kids gravitate to. It isn't the one parents take their kids to watch. It isn't the one people watch on TV.

If we could snap our fingers and change that in the US - we would - and have been saying that it has been moving in that direction for 50 years now. But reality is a bitch.

Until that changes, it's unlikely that the USMNT is ever going to attract enough home-grown talent to challenge on the world stage again in our lifetimes. It's also likely that US soccer is going to have a particularly hard time in the college years given recent events.

 

[chipmonk]

This is simply not true because if the cheat codes and how powerful they are. The reality is kick and run works to produce wins and parents don’t really care (for a variety of reasons) about development. Otherwise the market pre letter league would have supported a ton of development minded teams regardless of pro rel. it did not. The market in the old coast days favored the teams that won because they got promoted and access to the higher levels. We’ve seen how this plays out already in coast. We know how it works.

It's mostly the same in the leagues without pro/rel though. Especially at the younger ages. They always pick the faster, bigger players. They will pick the smaller players if they prove they can hang with the bigger players with their quickness and skill, but put those players on the 2nd/3rd teams if they they get bounced/overrun too easy. The academies straight up tell you this and have a mini combine for it.

Coast failed because they wouldn't preferentially help the bigger clubs with scheduling conflicts and CalSouth was inept. There was some whining when those same clubs had a poor season and didn't get promoted at the younger ages when the silver elite/gold/premier divisions became available but because of how it worked there was minimal relegation. There were ample opportunities (state cup, sanctioned tournaments, CRL) to perform well and appeal or qualify for the division you wanted.

All markets favor the teams that win, it just changed pro/rel to monopolized playoffs. The same player movement is happening to chase that**. The same coaches/clubs that had better player development in the pro/rel days still have the better player development today.

** I actually see more player movement now because the top kids are forced to leave their clubs to chase the so called higher letters (I mean levels). They don't have the option on staying at their club and helping them get promoted.

However I do agree with you that it's the economics that drive it all. The average League 2 salary in England is worthwhile for most people. It's the full pro/rel pyramid that enables that though. To actually be successful, the funding of real development needs to come from sources that are not parents. When clubs/coaches/agents/scouts can be set financially by discovering 1 or 2 professional players every couple of years then parents are removed from the equation and they ultimately make more money. The clubs would be more honest (ruthless too). Do I think it will happen here, of course not. But that model is also working for Europe in basketball now too and 5 of the last 10 NBA MVPs have been internationals. Add Embiid to make it 6/10 who somewhat followed that model as well.

 

[watfly]

To be clear, my original point had nothing to do with the MLS. Quite frankly, MLS is doing better than I expected in terms of popularity and interest. But it is doing well primarily due to the international players, as its the retirement home for players like Messi and Beckham.

My point is in regards to our National Team programs not generating much interest or support. Yes, their will be temporary interest in the team for the World Cup, but that will be short lived. What are the odds they make it out of pool play? Maybe the better way of saying it, is the homegrown players generate very little appeal or interest. As far as the National Team goes, that's because of the lack of success. Relatively speaking, we've made no progress in the last 30 years. Our players are better, and more play in the top Europe leagues, but we still fail against teams like Panama.

 

[outside!]

That's the exception rather than the rule. Football games are packed, and the whole town goes. Basketball games are packed, and the whole town goes. Even baseball games are well attended. Varsity soccer, even in the good programs, is lucky if half of the team's parents come out to watch the games.

It is not the exception in Southern California.

With regards to attendance, how much of that is based on football getting more publicity, preferential scheduling (Friday night games), the band, homecoming, cheerleaders, etc.?

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It is not the exception in Southern California.

I don't believe you - but even if true, southern California <> the US, and the US <> southern California.

With regards to attendance, how much of that is based on football getting more publicity, preferential scheduling (Friday night games), the band, homecoming, cheerleaders, etc.?

Completely irrelevant to try and assess the multiple reasons why other sports are more popular than soccer. All of those listed are certainly components - but they are intertwined with results of a sport's popularity, as well as causes for it to continue to be the case.

 

[Grace T.]

It's mostly the same in the leagues without pro/rel though. Especially at the younger ages. They always pick the faster, bigger players. They will pick the smaller players if they prove they can hang with the bigger players with their quickness and skill, but put those players on the 2nd/3rd teams if they they get bounced/overrun too easy. The academies straight up tell you this and have a mini combine for it.

Coast failed because they wouldn't preferentially help the bigger clubs with scheduling conflicts and CalSouth was inept. There was some whining when those same clubs had a poor season and didn't get promoted at the younger ages when the silver elite/gold/premier divisions became available but because of how it worked there was minimal relegation. There were ample opportunities (state cup, sanctioned tournaments, CRL) to perform well and appeal or qualify for the division you wanted.

All markets favor the teams that win, it just changed pro/rel to monopolized playoffs. The same player movement is happening to chase that**. The same coaches/clubs that had better player development in the pro/rel days still have the better player development today.

** I actually see more player movement now because the top kids are forced to leave their clubs to chase the so called higher letters (I mean levels). They don't have the option on staying at their club and helping them get promoted.

However I do agree with you that it's the economics that drive it all. The average League 2 salary in England is worthwhile for most people. It's the full pro/rel pyramid that enables that though. To actually be successful, the funding of real development needs to come from sources that are not parents. When clubs/coaches/agents/scouts can be set financially by discovering 1 or 2 professional players every couple of years then parents are removed from the equation and they ultimately make more money. The clubs would be more honest (ruthless too). Do I think it will happen here, of course not. But that model is also working for Europe in basketball now too and 5 of the last 10 NBA MVPs have been internationals. Add Embiid to make it 6/10 who somewhat followed that model as well.

All true, but we don't have letter leagues at the younger ages. Further Europe doesn't pro/rel their academies into rec. And the tiers for rec are meaningless because there are no scholarships at the end of the rainbow...it's just rec.

A tale of two pro/rel stories back from the coast days. My son has had 6 coaches...4 were awful...only 2 were good and development based and he would have stayed with those coaches if he could have but always circumstances beyond his control forced him to move. His 2nd team was a flight 3, local squad in coast. They usually finished (even after my son had left) 3rd, missing out promotion by 1. Every season they'd barely miss promotion out of a group of 8, the best players as a result would move on, and team had to rebuild from scratch as a result and could never progress because new guyss were always having to be brought up to speed. The coach could have made more of an effort to get around this by taking away my kids goalkicks and just having a big defender boot it, forbidden backward passing, put the tall faster players up top and just sent the ball over into a footrace, and teaching the kids to shoot it over the goalkeeper instead of on the ground. He didn't and as a result developed a great group of players that moved on to bigger and better things.

Another story, this from my kid's first team, AYSO United, was forced to play flight 3 by coast to start. Most of the games were double digit blowouts since United had a long list of fast and tall kids to pick from. Coach was the type that didn't believe in the backpass (yelled at them when they attempted) and constantly had the players booting it into space for a footrace. Would win double digits over most teams, that is until they got to League Cup. My son by that point had faced just really basic stuff and they'd been operating with the build out line. But once they got past the silver teams the silver elites started to pound on them and could actually connect. Suddenly booting it doesn't make sense anymore because they are losing the footraces, and my kid is getting screamed at for letting stuff he had not seen and had not tried in games before (like aerial 1v1 challenges). The team gets eliminated by league cup, coach is yelling at the kids and after promotion he upgrades a bunch of them including my kid. In fact, after they take the medal, despite the "everyone plays" rule he's bringing guests into state cup to try them out for next season meaning the upgraded kids had to sit and/or left, not even finishing the season. So much for "everyone plays"

I have the goods to torch the entire edifice. I sometimes consider doing it once the kiddo finishes with soccer.