If America's best athletes played futbol, do you think the USA would be a national powerhouse?

Problem with Mexico is coaching and development. The raw talent is undoubtedly there.
And still, Mexico is pretty good. Not a top, top team but easily better than USA.

Look at USA's females. Football is the top female sport in USA and they can pick their best female athletes. Whenever you watch the women's games it's insane how much better athletically they are than the competition.

They're not even technically good but excellent athleticism can compensate if one has at least decent technique.

with out a doubt, we'd be an international powerhouse. would have won multiple world cups. we already produce freak athletes, but another important thing is that the US has the highest level of disposable income per capita in the world... this means parents can afford to get their kids expensive training and equipment for whatever sports they play. the coaching and development for athletics here is incredible (some would argue outrageous) from little league all the way up to the professional level. i can only imagine if all this infrastructure was geared towards soccer... and yes, talent is needed, but this does make a difference.

searched for some figures about how much countries spend on sports per capita, but couldnt find anything... but im sure that the US would be on top of the list.

problem with Mexico is our Federation

If we really honestly wanted to we could become a powerhouse I think. But atm we don't really want to

Yea maybe. I honestly think futbal is more mentally and physically challenging then any other sport. Some people can't learn the game no matter how much training. It has to be naturally given, and talented. Look a lt ibra, why is there no other cf like him. Hes a pure definition of talent.

everest1 wrote:with out a doubt, we'd be an international powerhouse. would have won multiple world cups. we already produce freak athletes, but another important thing is that the US has the highest level of disposable income per capita in the world... this means parents can afford to get their kids expensive training and equipment for whatever sports they play. the coaching and development for athletics here is incredible (some would argue outrageous) from little league all the way up to the professional level. i can only imagine if all this infrastructure was geared towards soccer... and yes, talent is needed, but this does make a difference.

searched for some figures about how much countries spend on sports per capita, but couldnt find anything... but im sure that the US would be on top of the list.

In terms of disposable income, you have to consider that in the US, income that must be used to purchase private health insurance, pay for prescription drugs or to pay for university education, is not really disposable, but is considered so when most ratings are published. When those are factored in, we have a higher disposable income in Holland, and I think in many EU states.

We have a very small population but we can field a great football team. Population is not the biggest variable.

leemhuis wrote:

everest1 wrote:with out a doubt, we'd be an international powerhouse. would have won multiple world cups. we already produce freak athletes, but another important thing is that the US has the highest level of disposable income per capita in the world... this means parents can afford to get their kids expensive training and equipment for whatever sports they play. the coaching and development for athletics here is incredible (some would argue outrageous) from little league all the way up to the professional level. i can only imagine if all this infrastructure was geared towards soccer... and yes, talent is needed, but this does make a difference.

searched for some figures about how much countries spend on sports per capita, but couldnt find anything... but im sure that the US would be on top of the list.

In terms of disposable income, you have to consider that in the US, income that must be used to purchase private health insurance, pay for prescription drugs or to pay for university education, is not really disposable, but is considered so when most ratings are published. When those are factored in, we have a higher disposable income in Holland, and I think in many EU states.

We have a very small population but we can field a great football team. Population is not the biggest variable.

this doesnt sound right. quick google search tells me that ~90% of americans do not pay for their own healthcare (and thus would have very little/no cost for meds), and i can tell you from experience that student loans are not necessary to graduate with a 4 year degree, and furthermore that those who have student loans (which granted is a lof of people) don't have kids who want to play expensive sports.

overall i would be very surprised to hear that your opinion is correct, but it may be. what i can tell you is that it is absolutely not uncommon for middle class parents to pay THOUSANDS of dollars each year in sports related fees. i know many people who paid up to $5,000 per year so their kids could play club volleyball, and this is only for program fees not for equipment, transportation to/from tournaments, related expenses, etc. I know of similar stories with baseball, basketball, soccer, american football, and even hobbies like music. this is the kind of infrastructure, training, and development i'm talking about. even when you compare the amount spent on sports at prices adjusted for purchasing parity, i would be very surprised to find out that anyone outspends US parents.

of course, i have no statistics to back this up lol. but i think other middle class americans here can tell similar stories.

If the MLS ever becomes the 4th most important league in the US then there is no doubt in my mind that the US will have a team worthy of respect. That being said, I don't see football becoming the 4th most important sport in the US in a long time, and even then it would take them a decade or two to come up with a quality team.

PS: America is a continent, not a country :vagi:

Its only a matter of time before MLS surpasses one of hockey/basketball

Hockey is glorious but its audience (while quite hardcore) is really a niche group...Middle or upper middle class white people from the north

But IMO it wont be long before MLS passes the NBA...horrible, horrible product that sport puts out...With so many franchises wallowing in a cess-pool of ineptitude, players that (more than any other sport) don't connect with their audience, and an overly long regular season, talent pooling heavily in certain key cities, insufficient supply of stars, low attendances etc...The playoffs will certainly be a spectacle as always but the regular season seems to become more meaningless by the year, and that cant be good for the league

everest1 wrote:

leemhuis wrote:

everest1 wrote:with out a doubt, we'd be an international powerhouse. would have won multiple world cups. we already produce freak athletes, but another important thing is that the US has the highest level of disposable income per capita in the world... this means parents can afford to get their kids expensive training and equipment for whatever sports they play. the coaching and development for athletics here is incredible (some would argue outrageous) from little league all the way up to the professional level. i can only imagine if all this infrastructure was geared towards soccer... and yes, talent is needed, but this does make a difference.

searched for some figures about how much countries spend on sports per capita, but couldnt find anything... but im sure that the US would be on top of the list.

In terms of disposable income, you have to consider that in the US, income that must be used to purchase private health insurance, pay for prescription drugs or to pay for university education, is not really disposable, but is considered so when most ratings are published. When those are factored in, we have a higher disposable income in Holland, and I think in many EU states.

We have a very small population but we can field a great football team. Population is not the biggest variable.

this doesnt sound right. quick google search tells me that ~90% of americans do not pay for their own healthcare (and thus would have very little/no cost for meds), and i can tell you from experience that student loans are not necessary to graduate with a 4 year degree, and furthermore that those who have student loans (which granted is a lof of people) don't have kids who want to play expensive sports.

overall i would be very surprised to hear that your opinion is correct, but it may be. what i can tell you is that it is absolutely not uncommon for middle class parents to pay THOUSANDS of dollars each year in sports related fees. i know many people who paid up to $5,000 per year so their kids could play club volleyball, and this is only for program fees not for equipment, transportation to/from tournaments, related expenses, etc. I know of similar stories with baseball, basketball, soccer, american football, and even hobbies like music. this is the kind of infrastructure, training, and development i'm talking about. even when you compare the amount spent on sports at prices adjusted for purchasing parity, i would be very surprised to find out that anyone outspends US parents.

of course, i have no statistics to back this up lol. but i think other middle class americans here can tell similar stories.

From the statistics I have read close to 20% of Americans do not have healthcare insurance and those that have it must pay for it either in part or in total which reduces disposal inocme from between 16-20% compared to Europeans who have it provided by the state. As described here:

"Researchers calculated the burden of U.S. health care spending on families as a percentage of income and found that at the national level, lower-income families pay a larger share of their incomes toward health care than do higher-income families. Specifically, we found that payments made privately, such as those for health insurance or out-of-pocket spending for care, and publicly, through taxes and tax expenditures, consumed more than 20 percent of family income for families in the lowest-income quintile but no more than 16 percent for families in any other income quintile."

Insofar as sports spending, in Holland the state or municipality provide the transportation and other costs associated with sports participation, just as in health care provision. I think it is the same in other parts of the EU. So, it would be difficult to prove which country spends more on sports for their children.

Basketball is easily the most exciting sport to watch game to game.It's always pretty close, either team usually has a chance to win , dramatic swings happen frequently.

The playoffs is well the playoffs.Nothing better than it other than maybe the CL.

They need to resolve the talent pooling issue, possibly cut a team or two from the league,but I don't see football passing it in popularity anytime soon.

Even if US citizens move consistently away from Basketball, there will be a rapid influx of foreign based support.

Sadly no one will care about the regular season anytime soon, it's proven too meaningless to be important.Individual match ups are pretty huge still, I mean I doubt anyone's watching football on Christmas in the States?

Are they ?

Every European football league has a worse competition level than the NBA.

Christmas, thanksgiving, new years day, birth of a child, wedding...you name it, people watch football during it

Football is King, thats not up for debate

Hockey has never been enormous to begin with, but at least its stayed stable at the very minimum (this years playoff ratings are up)

The NBA used to be a monster....now its nothing more than a shell of what it used to be

Honestly the "will he/won't he" Lebron storyline is the main thing propping up the NBA for the average joe

You live in Jersey tho, I can see why the NBA don't interest you or those around you that much and with good reason.

That comes down to your talent pool point I suppose.

Lebron is an idiot, I avoid all Lebron discussion to the best of my ability, people overdo it and the basketball media is too market driven.

Sportscenter and 1st take and this stuff, too built to engineer controversy instead of talking basketball.

American sports media design pisses me off , random guys shouting a bunch of random stats at you like they're the holy grail and talking and trying to create rifts between teams like idiots.

Very few genuine basketball programs , Inside the NBA comes to mind.

One of the main reasons I don't see a succesful football team being built, because the media is worse than England, they will drive the players into the ground.

Basketball is one thing , but when they have to compete on an even playing field and they lose and this is actually something the American public cares about, those guys are going to face onslaught after onslaught.

No

The problem isn't even that the U.S. best athletes don't play soccer it's the USSF that's holding U.S. back.

Look at teams that win National and State cups in the U.S., a grip of Hispanic players at all age levels.
Look at the US national team selection.

See the difference ?

Look at the cities that have the best Club and High school teams in the nation, now how many of those players ever get selected for ODP ? Close to None.

USSF is the problem.

OF COURSE! The US has their 'C' level athletes playing soccer and they are competitive. Could you imagine if all of the United States' freakish athletes have focused on soccer since they were children?

If soccer was #1 sport in US, the US would definitely be on top of the world in this sport. The domestic league would be #1 in world as their would be more money in it than in England and the national team would always be one of the favorites to win the major tournaments.

I am one of the least patriotic people I know too, but US would rule the 'football/soccer' landscape if soccer was #1 sport in the country. There is no question.

Best soccer players from the last 30 years if....................

Allen Iverson (ronaldhino type player..he was a highly recruited QB out of high school)
Jason Kidd (Xavi/Pirlo...incredible vision)
Barry Sanders (Maradona.......just a freak of nature, was a one man highlight reel)
Michael Vick
Michael Johnson
Jerry Rice
Marshall Faulk
Chris Paul
T.O
Reggie Bush
Isiah Thomas
Derrick Rose
Deion Sanders.
....... I could go on forever.
These are all freakish athletes that had the size and athletic ability to excel in soccer.


Anyone who denies that the US wouldn't dominate the soccer/football landscape is just crazy or completely biased against US. And again, I'm not patriotic at all

steve you are just naming players who are physically fit. That's it...by that logic African nations should be dominating futbal because they are physically superior.

Playing basketball - hand eye coordination is MUCH easier then soccer.

Football - even easier, you catch a ball and run. QB is the hardest position which requires the most mental strength and vision.

So if you are basing you opinions on strickly physical abilities, why haven't African nations ever won a world cup, its the number one sport there and gets a lot of funding. If you are gonna say disposable income and such...why do some of the best players come from the poorest parts of Brazil, Argentina.

Allen Iverson - Ronaldinho type player LOL...don't insult Ronaldinho. To do what he does with his feet is much harder.

Also some of the best basketball players say soccer has helped them become a better player because it builds exactly what you need for basketball. Steve Nash, Kobe.

Futbal requires more vision IMO.

Le Samourai wrote:You live in Jersey tho, I can see why the NBA don't interest you or those around you that much and with good reason.

I don't live in Jersey I live in Philadelphia...The only city in the country with more of a basketball history than Philadelphia is New York - people are just disillusioned with the crap product the NBA is putting out for almost the entirety of the regular season..

Philly turning it's back on the NBA

Things not good brah.

To OP, refer to previous and ongoing failures in rugby and cricket for your answer

Spoiler:

Good athletes does not mean good football team.

However if the focused on developing youngsters then yeah.

Any country can become a super power if the concentrate enough time in football.

Dat Better athlete pool will alone make USA super power is bull,its not about athleticism its about training and spending more time for football and ofcourse a better football league.

@OP of course, the US of A have traditionally been sports fanatics, and do take international competitions very seriously in terms of national pride. If they cared about football, they'd be good at it. They are at everything else they care about. And they got 300 million well-fed citizens, some of the mare bound to be good football players.

They'd need proper European style academies, though.

VivaStPauli wrote:@OP of course, the US of A have traditionally been sports fanatics, and do take international competitions very seriously in terms of national pride. If they cared about football, they'd be good at it. They are at everything else they care about. And they got 300 million well-fed citizens, some of the mare bound to be good football players.

They'd need proper European style academies, though.

they would import football experts from Holland, Germany and Spain to catch up,no doubt about that.

If they cared, they would be at the top.

Just let the Hispanics play. You'll see what happens.

The problem with U.S is that it has an Anglo/Nordic approach when it comes to Football. Like in England it's Athleticism before Technique.

You like to play the IF game. But it doesn't work that way. Football is a religion in Europe and South America. EVERYBODY follows the National team where I live. Everybody. And many watch club football. When I was in school I'd spend every second of my school breaks playing football, most boys in my school did. Afterwards, I'd spend the whole afternoon playing with my mates.

It doesn't just have to be popular, it has to be more than that. Kids in Brazil are good because all they ever do is play football, they aren't just born with talent, they train, alot. And you don't need many academies at all. You just need kids playing all day long. That's why poorer countries usually generate more raw talent, while the rich countries (with more academies) generate athletes with strong tactical knowledge.

Football will never be that popular in the US, it won't. And for the sake of the IF game. If China or India chose football as their #1 sport, their NT would also be the best.

I don't know why people keep bringing up China and India, huge population yes, but they have yet to show close to the capacity of creating dominant athletes like the United States. They don't have the facilities, the genes, etc.