RIP World Cup for the USA

[Meow Liao]

A sad day for US soccer.  Panama and Honduras both come back from deficits to win.  Combined with a loss to Trinidad and Tobago, the USMNT will miss the World Cup in Russia.  I'll still watch around 90% of the games.  I'll just spend the whole time griping.  Sigh.   :'(

Meow Liao

[trboturtle]

It's their own fault -- they had a bad patch earlier in the cycle that put them down. And tonight, when they had a chance to seal the deal, allowed two goals in, including an own goal.

Their own fault....

Craig

[MoparMessiah]

Yes we suck.

It's totally unacceptable but we don't take soccer seriously in the US.  We need to create leagues like the rest of the world rather than try use an NFL model.  Soccer needs to be regional. 

[Feenix74]

Commiserations.

Here in Australia, us soccer/football fanatics are still trying to recover from our multiple heart attacks last night when we finally won 2-1 in extra time (aka over time) against Syria (including watching the Syrians hit the goal post in added-on extra time from a penalty kick). So now we get to face Honduras in the intercontinental play-off for the last WC Finals berth.

[garhkal]

It's their own fault -- they had a bad patch earlier in the cycle that put them down. And tonight, when they had a chance to seal the deal, allowed two goals in, including an own goal.

Their own fault....

Craig

I agree.  Too many players seem to PLAY as individuals, and NOT as a team..  And for got sake.  STOP RELYING ON altidor..

[Sharpnel]

Overall mediocre talent combined with a mid-stream coaching change laden with poor decisions by both coaches leads to an expected, if disheartening, outcome.

[Kentares]

It's totally unacceptable but we don't take soccer seriously in the US.  We need to create leagues like the rest of the world rather than try use an NFL model.  Soccer needs to be regional.

Im surprised this isnt done already. As a european (a portuguese one btw) I expected that somekind of regional leagues were played in the US to earn experience (and to some degree find future stars).

Im also surprised that US didnt qualify. They had good teams (and though to defeat) in the last couple World Cups.

[Sharpnel]

I'd like to see a league structure similar to those in Europe with promotions and relegations. It would make soccer more interesting to see a team from say, Bend, Oregon playing with the teams from the big cities. I would love to see a story like how Leicester won the EPL two yearsago.

[I am Belch II]

Funny how such a small tiny population country can beat a much larger pool of resources country like the US.

[Sharpnel]

Funny how such a small tiny population country can beat a much larger pool of resources country like the US.

And they would not have been the smallest nation to qualify for the World Cup. That distinction goes to Iceland, which qualified this year.

So will the Aussies be playing Honduras or Peru?

[MoparMessiah]

Im surprised this isnt done already. As a european (a portuguese one btw) I expected that somekind of regional leagues were played in the US to earn experience (and to some degree find future stars).

Im also surprised that US didnt qualify. They had good teams (and though to defeat) in the last couple World Cups.

Nope. 

Instead they are trying to follow the NFL model which has forever been a disaster. 

Soccer/Football works in Europe because of the league structure. 

[Iron Mongoose]

Truthfully, despite being an American and generally supporting the home team, I was rooting for the US to be knocked out.  The truth is, we need a wake up call.  We can't just skate through by the skin of our teeth because CONCAF is one of the weaker groups (the Netherlands are out in Europe; despite being off their usual form does anyone think our group's top qualifier, Mexico, is their superior?).  We can't just keep pulling it out of the fire by way of a few individual heroics and mask our systemic deficiencies. 

Now, it could be that after this people stop caring about soccer (I nearly typed football, but it is called USA Soccer) and funding ebbs and the pipe line dries up a bit.  That's possible.  But, our domestic leagues are becoming ever more popular, the womens' team is still the best in the world (and probably a bigger draw than the men anyway, since they actually bring home some hardware). 

Rather, my hope is that people will come to realize that we can't take things for granted, that we can't just skate by and we actually have to care, we actually have to put some energy and effort into things.  I'd like to see in four years we're a better team, and with more support, because people realize that you have to pay attention all the time, and not just tune in for the World Cup.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Not being soccer fans is almost as American as not using the metric system.  We take an almost perverse pride in it.

It's been hugely successful as a children's sport, but I think we're still in a place where it's still largely seen as not much more than that: a kid's game.

[Kit deSummersville]

Nope. 

Instead they are trying to follow the NFL model which has forever been a disaster. 

Soccer/Football works in Europe because of the league structure.

It also works because of it's popularity. Expecting a groundswell of support across the country to create a league system when it's a fifth or sixth-rate sport as far as fandom isn't going to work.

[Iron Mongoose]

Nope. 

Instead they are trying to follow the NFL model which has forever been a disaster. 

Soccer/Football works in Europe because of the league structure.

I'd like this too, and I think it would be fun to see in other leagues too.  Sorry Browns and 49ers, you're now playing in the CFL; we get Calgary and Ottawa.

But, we just don't have the depth to do it.  Most European countries have scores and scores of teams that are well supported.  There are teams playing in the third and fourth tiers of English football play in front of more fans than many MLS teams.  The same in Germany and probably other places, though I know them less well.  There are a few soccer made cities, but even many enormous markets that can't keep stadia half full despite populations in the millions, or else can't even keep their teams in town.  So how could you find places to put another few dozen teams to fill a lesser league?  That being done, where do you get players?  Who would watch the game?  Who would pay for them?

Baseball could probably do it if they wanted to, given they already have successive tiers of minor league teams (which they never will, given that nearly all minor league teams serve as farm teams for major league teams).  The NFL's minor leagues are collages, which wouldn't really work (ok, Alabama is in the NFL now), but there's no question that collage ball graduates enough players to populate several new leagues, and there's significant support for football in the USA (though it may or may not be waning).  The NBA is broadly similar.

But, the corporate structures of these groups mean it will never go down.  No major league will dilute it's profits, and there's vastly too much money in collage ball to want to dilute that with more lesser leagues.

Plus, many American sports leagues are more even than top European football leagues.  How many teams really have a chance to win the Prem, not just this year but this decade?  Four?  Six?  How about the Bundesliga?  Three?  Bayern Munich and two or three with half a chance each?  Does anyone outside of Barcelona and the Madrid teams have a chance in Spain? The fact that American teams are able to draft from their lower divisions, that we have free agency in place of hundred million euro transfer fees, and in some leagues (but not others) well regulated and enforced salary caps means a lot more mobility from the top of the table to the bottom, even if it's impossible to ever fall off.  For a majority of teams, the season isn't about trying to win the league, but about avoiding relegation.  The NFL is terrible at a great many things, and it makes me feel slightly yucky to praise them, but because they do love making money so much, they've become very good at creating a league where a lot of teams have a chance to win, and I think there are other leagues that could benefit from a few of their practices (though none having to do with morality or social justice)

[MoparMessiah]

It also works because of it's popularity. Expecting a groundswell of support across the country to create a league system when it's a fifth or sixth-rate sport as far as fandom isn't going to work.

I'll have to disagree.

We have a minor league team here in Sacramento - The Republic.  I believe every game has sold out. 

I went to the World Cup quarter final at Stanford.  I have been to countless qualifiers and friendlies.  There is a bigger support base than you think.

Also it doesn't need to start Nationally.  That might be our downfall that this country is so frisking big.  I think starting a regional or state league would be the starting point. 

Who wouldn't want their home town to have a regional team?

I know I'm dreaming. 

[Iron Mongoose]

Who wouldn't want their home town to have a regional team?

Vast swaths of people who don't live on the West Coast or the North East? 

Minor league baseball works because the sport has a history in this country going back over a century, so most minor league teams have decades of history, and were able to build fan bases from a time when baseball was still the national pastime, and most have their own propose built stadia that are roughly the right size for their fan base.  There's also dramatically less competition from collage baseball.  And of course, most teams don't actually need to turn a profit, since their main role is as farm teams.

[snewsom2997]

I'll have to disagree.

We have a minor league team here in Sacramento - The Republic.  I believe every game has sold out. 

I went to the World Cup quarter final at Stanford.  I have been to countless qualifiers and friendlies.  There is a bigger support base than you think.

Also it doesn't need to start Nationally.  That might be our downfall that this country is so frisking big.  I think starting a regional or state league would be the starting point. 

Who wouldn't want their home town to have a regional team?

I know I'm dreaming.

We recently in the last year tried to get a MLS soccer team in STL. We have a minor league team STLFC. The problem, the biggest problem, is taxpayer funded stadiums, lots of cities in the US have a bad taste in their mouths because of it. STL still owes 40 million on RAMS DOME bonds and they aren't even in STL any more. For MLS they wanted the city to build a stadium that would have required sell out crowds for 50 years to pay off the initial costs, and the city would have been on the hook for any renovations as well. We recently had a problem with the Blues wanting the taxpayers to renovate their Arena. Mind you this is in a city with barely accredited schools, not enough cops, and a 100 year old sewer system prone to failure, on top of all the current social issues, like protests, #1 in STDs, #2 in Murders, high property crime, high crime against person, and a 50 year exodus that has seem the cities population reduced by 3/4ths. Soccer is incredibly popular in STL, if your kids play soccer in STL, you will be playing games from 6 in the am to midnight there are so many teams. Indoor leagues are even more in demand, you end up playing at 2 and 3 in the am. You have a fan base in STL, just not enough to justify using taxpayer money for a 30k seat stadium, and not enough in the City alone. The planners of the project explicitly excluded STL County from the funding mechanism, because they wanted the stadium built in the City. The County could've funded a stadium but they would've wanted it in the county.

Finally do you need a local Team, when there are 10 channels of international soccer, played by far more proficient individuals, people who play soccer like we play football or baseball.

[garhkal]

Truthfully, despite being an American and generally supporting the home team, I was rooting for the US to be knocked out.  The truth is, we need a wake up call.  We can't just skate through by the skin of our teeth because CONCAF is one of the weaker groups (the Netherlands are out in Europe; despite being off their usual form does anyone think our group's top qualifier, Mexico, is their superior?).  We can't just keep pulling it out of the fire by way of a few individual heroics and mask our systemic deficiencies. 

I agree..  THE US Mens team has imo long needed a major wake up call...  MLS included.  BYT what i don't understand is if ConCAF, World cup etc are ALL played under the same rules as FIFA has, WHY IS there such a disparity in what referees call for fouls??

Now, it could be that after this people stop caring about soccer (I nearly typed football, but it is called USA Soccer) and funding ebbs and the pipe line dries up a bit.  That's possible.  But, our domestic leagues are becoming ever more popular, the womens' team is still the best in the world (and probably a bigger draw than the men anyway, since they actually bring home some hardware). 

They have, imo for at least a decade had a lot more success, but STILL don't have the popularity in general, as the USMNT does..  Which to me is frabbed up..

Rather, my hope is that people will come to realize that we can't take things for granted, that we can't just skate by and we actually have to care, we actually have to put some energy and effort into things.  I'd like to see in four years we're a better team, and with more support, because people realize that you have to pay attention all the time, and not just tune in for the World Cup.

We can hope.  BUT Imo cause so many players of all sports these days, at the natl/major league level, are so overpaid, they LOSE the drive to actually do as much, "CAUSE TEHY ALREADY GOT PAID"..
Which is why i would love to see those at this level go to a LOW BASE pay (say 30k a year), and have BONUSES for good play, goals scored (or stopped for goal keepers) games won, titles won etc..  AND A penalty based system for own goals, fouls that gets a yellow card, Red cards, losing the game cause of poor play and the like..

[Kit deSummersville]

There is a bigger support base than you think.

If they are, they aren't spending:

NFL $13 billion
MLB $9.5 billion
NBA $4.8 billion
NHL $3.7 billion
NASCAR $3 billion
MLS $0.46 billion

[Iron Mongoose]

We can hope.  BUT Imo cause so many players of all sports these days, at the natl/major league level, are so overpaid, they LOSE the drive to actually do as much, "CAUSE TEHY ALREADY GOT PAID"..
Which is why i would love to see those at this level go to a LOW BASE pay (say 30k a year), and have BONUSES for good play, goals scored (or stopped for goal keepers) games won, titles won etc..  AND A penalty based system for own goals, fouls that gets a yellow card, Red cards, losing the game cause of poor play and the like..

I think it's beyond question that the Women's Team needs to be paid dramatically more, since they both generate more income and their games attract more viewership (in part because they tend to play more and more high profile games, and because they tend to win them).

But I don't think cutting the men's side's pay is the right answer.  We want soccer to be more attractive, rather than less, for young men thinking about going into American football or some other sport to think "maybe I'd like to be part of a game that's not just subjectively better, and offers objectively less risk of long term brain injury, but also offers more comparable compensation."  Now granted we can't just make money come out of thin air.  There's little to be done about the MLS (or else the NWLS, who's league minimum is broadly on par with working at the Gap) but demonstrating to the very top players that they have value can't not be a good thing, I think.

After all, the highest paid player in the world just scored a hat trick when his team's World Cup was on the line.  Seemingly, at least in one case, pay is no determent to effort. 

[Kit deSummersville]

Seemingly, at least in one case, pay is no determent to effort.

Yeah, Tom Brady's earned close to $200 million from the Patriots alone and he isn't giving up despite having a pretty snazzy life outside of football. There certainly are the Albert Haynesworths of the world but they seem to be outliers compared to the drive that top players have to compete.

[Sharpnel]

After all, the highest paid and best player in the world just scored a hat trick when his team's World Cup was on the line.  Seemingly, at least in one case, pay is no determent to effort.

FTFY. Like he said, a World Cup without Argentina is unthinkable

[Meow Liao]

After all, the highest paid player in the world just scored a hat trick when his team's World Cup was on the line.  Seemingly, at least in one case, pay is no determent to effort. 

That, and the fact they've killed players for "less reason."  Less, as it relates within the 'you killed someone over a game' spectrum.   #P

I had to watch the game in Spanish.  On Univision.  Telemundo was showing another game.  The final World Cup qualifier, and we can't get an English language national broadcast. 

Meow Liao

[Kentares]

... Most European countries have scores and scores of teams that are well supported...

...How many teams really have a chance to win the Prem, not just this year but this decade?  Four?  Six?  How about the Bundesliga?  Three?  Bayern Munich and two or three with half a chance each?  Does anyone outside of Barcelona and the Madrid teams have a chance in Spain? The fact that American teams are able to draft from their lower divisions, that we have free agency in place of hundred million euro transfer fees, and in some leagues (but not others) well regulated and enforced salary caps means a lot more mobility from the top of the table to the bottom, even if it's impossible to ever fall off.  For a majority of teams, the season isn't about trying to win the league, but about avoiding relegation.  The NFL is terrible at a great many things, and it makes me feel slightly yucky to praise them, but because they do love making money so much, they've become very good at creating a league where a lot of teams have a chance to win, and I think there are other leagues that could benefit from a few of their practices (though none having to do with morality or social justice)

Its a bit misleading whats going on right now in Europe.

In a way youre right but those scores and scores of teams (not that many) that are well supported are becoming a problem right now. That problem is that since most of them became private owned corporations (instead of a regional cooperative associations of the past - my favorite team started like that at the end of the 19th century - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Porto) a big gap is widening among the very well funded teams (either through millionaires or investment funds) and all the others which took UEFA to take some measures (not enough in my opinion) like the Financial Fair Play

[Kidd]

Commiserations. An OG is a terrible way to go.

The local tinfoil hat community is already buzzing though that it was intentional given this year's host country, and something big will go down, but I don't think even they credit this theory much :D

the womens' team is still the best in the world (and probably a bigger draw than the men anyway, since they actually bring home some hardware). 

It also helps to have a gorgeous goalie :D seriously, my mates and I stayed up to watch the 2012 Olympic women's footsie final just to admire every time Ms Solo came on-screen :D

[Iron Mongoose]

Its a bit misleading whats going on right now in Europe.

There's no question that there is not financial parity within each league, to say nothing of from league to league.  One can ask, I suppose, if it's better to have an entrenched set of teams at the top of a league that's unchanging (the Yankees in baseball, perhaps, though it comes and goes as to how true that holds) or an entrenched set of teams at the top of a team where the bottem few rotate in and out (Man-U, Chelsea, Arsenal... )? 

I don't propose an answer.  I definitely think the NFL is one of the more competitive of the leagues I follow (I'm given to understand that the NBA and NHL do an acceptable job as well, but I'm less into those sports).  But, I do like the idea that there's still an element of tension for underperforming teams.  I can think back on years where there seemed to be an incentive for some teams in the NFL to try to be the worst, so as to ensure they could draft key top players (Andrew Luck was a big one, I recall).  There are teams in baseball and American football (and doubtless basketball and hockey) that can suck year after year after year, and never the less manage to be profitable and take little or no action to remedy the situation.  Sure, the same two or three teams win the Prem every year, but at least the losers have a chance to rotate, and new teams have a chance to shine, and from time to time some of them shine.

It also helps to have a gorgeous goalie :D seriously, my mates and I stayed up to watch the 2012 Olympic women's footsie final just to admire every time Ms Solo came on-screen :D

As someone who's both seen her play and who's seen her in person a few times, I'll simply say that it's probably best that she should be admired for her keeping skills (which are very good, but hardly irreplaceable) first, and other things second or later.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a single heterosexual man, and I'd happy take a large share of the female footballing population on a date, but for my part and for the parts of those friends of mine who also follow the Women's National Team and the NWSL, I watch because they play a good game. 

[Kidd]

As someone who's both seen her play and who's seen her in person a few times, I'll simply say that it's probably best that she should be admired for her keeping skills (which are very good, but hardly irreplaceable) first, and other things second or later.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a single heterosexual man, and I'd happy take a large share of the female footballing population on a date, but for my part and for the parts of those friends of mine who also follow the Women's National Team and the NWSL, I watch because they play a good game.

Oh most definitely. After all, we wouldn't swap the World Cup for the top 22 Miss World finalists kicking a ball around, certainly not.

Well, don't be so down in the dumps about things, guys. You've just been isolated a bit for a while, but since the Internet I think there's been a lot more American exposure and interest in soccer. I'm sure the future of the sport in the US is bright.

[garhkal]

But I don't think cutting the men's side's pay is the right answer.  We want soccer to be more attractive, rather than less, for young men thinking about going into American football or some other sport to think "maybe I'd like to be part of a game that's not just subjectively better, and offers objectively less risk of long term brain injury, but also offers more comparable compensation."  Now granted we can't just make money come out of thin air.  There's little to be done about the MLS (or else the NWLS, who's league minimum is broadly on par with working at the Gap) but demonstrating to the very top players that they have value can't not be a good thing, I think.

After all, the highest paid player in the world just scored a hat trick when his team's World Cup was on the line.  Seemingly, at least in one case, pay is no determent to effort.

20 years ago, it was UNHEARD of for players to make 10 mil a year, let alone 100 mil for a 3 yr contract.  NOW its seen as teams being cheapscate if they DON'T offer somewhere near that much..  THAT's what i was getting at..  We seem to see one upmanship on every contract signed, even if the player SUCKS Balls..  And teams pay out, just cause "they want the brand name the player might bring"..
BUT IF they all took a big pay cut, and actually were paid BASED ON HOW well they do, imo that would push more to actually PERFORM rathr than the crap we seem to see..
AND ITS for all sports, not just soccer i wish something like that was done with.

[Kit deSummersville]

There are teams in baseball and American football (and doubtless basketball and hockey) that can suck year after year after year, and never the less manage to be profitable and take little or no action to remedy the situation. 

And some who suck because they take too much action to 'remedy' the situation. One of the problems the Cleveland Browns have is that they keep changing management and coaching about every two years. There's no consistency, from the type of players they need for how they want to accomplish things as well as the plays that the players run.

[Kentares]

And some who suck because they take too much action to 'remedy' the situation. One of the problems the Cleveland Browns have is that they keep changing management and coaching about every two years. There's no consistency, from the type of players they need for how they want to accomplish things as well as the plays that the players run.

That happens in soccer also

[Iron Mongoose]

20 years ago, it was UNHEARD of for players to make 10 mil a year, let alone 100 mil for a 3 yr contract.  NOW its seen as teams being cheapscate if they DON'T offer somewhere near that much..  THAT's what i was getting at..  We seem to see one upmanship on every contract signed, even if the player SUCKS Balls..  And teams pay out, just cause "they want the brand name the player might bring"..
BUT IF they all took a big pay cut, and actually were paid BASED ON HOW well they do, imo that would push more to actually PERFORM rathr than the crap we seem to see..
AND ITS for all sports, not just soccer i wish something like that was done with.

I do agree, it is for all sports.  How to combat that?  A hard salary cap is one way.  It won't solve everything, but a quick look at the NFL shows that it's top players tend to make less than top players in other sports, despite being a more popular and lucrative league (and being a sport where players are at vastly greater risk of career ending injury). 

For my part, I'd say just let the market sort things out.  In the case of football (soccer), which is broadly considered the most popular sport in the world, it's broadly reasonable that the best/most popular players should be paid massively.  If Christiano Ronaldo, Andrew Luck, Clayton Kershaw, or LeBron James (according for Forbes the highest paid in their sports) can provide entertainment a few hours a week to millions (or billions) of people, there's value in that (and if they can use that entertainment to put advertisements in front of millions of people, there's value in that).  I don't mind it, for my part.

And some who suck because they take too much action to 'remedy' the situation. One of the problems the Cleveland Browns have is that they keep changing management and coaching about every two years. There's no consistency, from the type of players they need for how they want to accomplish things as well as the plays that the players run.

This is one upside of relegation.  You can change coaches, players, GMs even, but the billionaires who sit at the top of their teams food chain don't go anywhere, unless their team is relegated.  Sometimes, one wonders if that would either motivate some teams to shape up more aggressively, or else just clear out some of the deadwood, and get some new blood in the game.

[Kit deSummersville]

  You can change coaches, players, GMs even, but the billionaires who sit at the top of their teams food chain don't go anywhere, unless their team is relegated. 

Or they get recorded making racist rants to their mistresses.  ;)

[garhkal]

This is one upside of relegation.  You can change coaches, players, GMs even, but the billionaires who sit at the top of their teams food chain don't go anywhere, unless their team is relegated.  Sometimes, one wonders if that would either motivate some teams to shape up more aggressively, or else just clear out some of the deadwood, and get some new blood in the game.

But all too often (especially in soccer/epl) we seem to only SEE the coaches and managers being fired, when the PLAYERS are the ones sucking..

[Iron Mongoose]

Well, people are definitely capable of sucking at any level of an organization. 

If the players are sucking, then why is that?  Are they intrinsically poor players?  If so, why are they on the team?  Perhaps the coach or GM should still go first anyway, since they stocked the team with poor players, and the new coach/GM (depending on how a team's front office is structured and what terms are used) should have a chance to rebuild on their own time.  Or perhaps the players are capable, but they're not being utilized well, or trained well, in which case the coach should still go.

I think it's worse in soccer, because coaches are easy to replace, while getting new players is quite expensive, and knowing who to bring in is, in any event, a very subtle thing. 

Of course, one easy fix is just to throw giant gobs of money at the problem.  It's not foolproof, but I'd say it's got a better success rate than other solutions.

[garhkal]

The coach though is not the one doing the hiring of the playrs..  That's the owners or manager.

[Iron Mongoose]

Well, this is timely: Bruce Arena has resigned (not quit, though of course we don't know how strongly he was encouraged to leave, and how much was his own sense of responsibility). 

In a case like this, I do think a new coach is probably right, simply because on a national team it's a lot harder to just get new players.  Some countries that are more football mad, it's probably a lot easier since they've just got more depth of talent in the pool of eligible players, but I'm not aware of any stars or any hidden talents in US men's soccer (in contrast to women's soccer, where we've got plenty of players in the NWSL and around the world who have the quality to make the team, we may well have fewer than 11 really world class men, though that may just be my own biases speaking).  So, if you accept that we can't make meaningful player changes (you don't have to) and you can't really change the 'ownership' (though I do think the organization isn't particularly good in many key ways and does need to make some changes) then all you can really do is change the coach.

Now, of course, the counter point is that, especially for a team like the US which (despite two decades of World Cup qualification) is really still in need of development, changing coaches affects players and the time being able to grow and develop. How is the team to train?  How do we bring up our young players?  Are players encouraged to go to and recruited from Europe, or are they encouraged to stay in the MLS?  Of the 23 players called up for the most recent game, 15 were over 30, and only 5 were under 25, which hints that the next coach will have a lot of world to do to continue to attract and develop talent (now, a dozen or so other young players have played with the team in other games, a few in quite a few other games; why Arena picked the team he did, you'd have to ask him. Also for reference, all our opponents were under 30).  So, one might hope that we can identify a good coach and give them time and let them endure some setbacks, so long as we retain confidence in them, and let them work their magic and shape the team with their vision.

But, how common are such coaches?  Where do we find one?  Go abroad again?  Hire locally?  I don't know.