I think the best teams by far are in Europe and South America but society is a much more important part of their culture than most Asian African or North (not including central) American countries. However, I think with development of the African and Asian states that currently play leisure soccer we will see more and more diversity at the World Cup when it comes down to the final rounds. I think FIFA is aware of this since we have Qatar as a host nation after having South Africa only a few years ago. I’d expect this pattern to continue with a powerful “western” nation hosting one cup and then a up and coming nation hosting the next. FIFA for all their flaws does understand planning for the future better than most companies today.

I think it’s called bribes.

"I think the best teams by far are in Europe and South America"

Of course they are.

All those countries have their best athletes playing soccer.

The US has our best athletes playing in the NBA, NFL and MLB.

What if we had Mike Trout, Julio Jones, Russell Westbrook, etc playing soccer their whole lives?

Not sure if the problem is athletes in America. I think the big problem is the level of coaching - the few times I've watched MLS games the tactics have been utter garbage... Might as well not have a midfield half the time. And whilst buying in foreign players and coaches can sort of help there, the foreigners that MLS usually brings in are at the end of their careers when they no longer have the desire or ability to all out bust a gut for the team every game anyway. Maybe if they bought some mid-tier European youngsters over, that had had lots of experience with better coaches, weren't good enough for the A-sides of Europe, but still had the desire... Then maybe that could dissipate to the other Americans. But really, better coaches from Youth level to the top is what's needed.

Also relegation & promotion like any sensible sport. :)

@HR

"MLS tactics" is an oxymoron

" I think the big problem is the level of coaching"

Jurgen Klinsmann was the USMNT Coach for six years.

"And whilst buying in foreign players and coaches can sort of help there, the foreigners that MLS usually brings in are at the end of their careers"

The MLS can't afford the top players like Messi or Ronaldo. The top European clubs are among the wealthiest sports franchises in the world

"But really, better coaches from Youth level to the top is what's needed."

And that is why I pointed out the best athletes go to the NFL, MLB and NBA as do the best coaches.

You can't tell me that if all the best athletes in the US decided to play soccer and not football, baseball and basketball that wouldn't help the National Team.

Klinsmann is a rather divisive figure in Germany, let alone America. But I don't just mean at the very top - International Coaches get to see their players for about 6 weeks per year. I mean coaches at club level - IE. The MLS teams, and just as importantly, the youth tiers below that.

Sure, if the athletes all played Soccer instead you'd be somewhat better - but good athleticism doesn't translate to great players by itself. You still need coaches to turn them into something special. Not to mention that the skills you need in Baseball and NFL are rather different to those in real Football, and don't necessarily translate.

well Football has been on a bit of a decline since the CTE stuff came out, and Baseball isn't what it once used to be. NHL isn't accessible by many in the country, but Basketball still is dominant. In fact, Basketball is actually getting a lot bigger overseas.

i'm confident that the US will grow, but i'm not sure at all how quickly.

this isn't to say Football and Baseball aren't major forces in America: each still bigger than the MLS

The rise of China as the new big spenders of the football world might conversely help MLS in the long run. If your clubs can't waste what money they do have on faded old veterans then they might invest it in strong youth academies and coaches instead.

I can't see MLS ever competing with European or even South American teams though, simply because aside from the top few clubs the rest have essentially nothing to play for from such an early point in the season. Relegation & Promotion keeps things interesting lower down the table and means those teams always have something to play for.

" Not to mention that the skills you need in Baseball and NFL are rather different to those in real Football, and don't necessarily translate. "

I am not saying taking professionals from other sports and put them on the USMNT.

I am saying if they choose soccer from the beginning and trained those skills instead of their current sports.

It sounds like you might not be from the US (just a guess, not an attack) but if you don't know who guys like Julio Jones are, you might want to check them out. Wide Receivers like him, Odell Beckham, AJ Green or Antonio Brown are freak athletes with elite speed and the footwork to make quick, change of direction cuts.

Julio Jones goes about 6'3" 220 with 4.3 speed in the 40 yard dash and the ability to change direction on a dime without losing much, if any speed.

Plus the NFL has linebackers like Von Miller, Justin Houston and Khalil Mack who have like 4.5 speed in the 40 and also the quick burst ability and ability to change directions on a dime who go about 6'3" 250 who could make imposing defenders had they chosen to train in soccer at an early age instead of football.

Quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Alex Smith, Deshaun Watson or Russell Wilson have great mobility also. Are tall and lean with quickness to avoid pressure and incredible field vision and accurate throwing arms which had the practiced passing with their feet instead of arms would surely develop incredible touch.

Elite athletes are elite athletes and would probably become stars in whatever sport they chose from the beginning.

My point is that the best athletes in this country are not choosing soccer as their first choice from the beginning.

"If your clubs can't waste what money they do have on faded old veterans then they might invest it in strong youth academies and coaches instead."

The youth academies in Europe and S. America for their clubs will always draw the top talent, even the few elite young US talent as you see Pulisic going to Dortmund.

The promotion/relegation argument rings pretty hollow to me. Most American sports leagues have more to play for at the top (playoff spots), and significantly more parity. The middle 50% of a European has "essentially nothing to play for" not just once the standings have settled, and not even just from the beginning of the season, but often indefinitely until someone with a lot more money decides to buy the team.

If you look at baseball right now, which is probably America's worst sport in terms of money dictating team talent, only half the playoff teams this year fell in the top half in spending, and a fifth were in the bottom third. Compare that to BPL or La Liga and the contrast is pretty stark.

I'd argue Pro rel is what has made European leagues so uncompetitive. You have two to four strong teams with solid brands and all the money, and the rest of the league can't ever build the financial stability to challenge them especially the smaller teams that are constantly having any progress shredded when they get relegated.

In the American system in MLS and Baseball it is players who get relegated. If your team under performs a bunch of the weaker players are shown the door and better ones brought up. It's still competitive for players way, but you don't end up with an uncompetitive league

Also, with the playoff system, teams have a lot to play for even deep in the season. To a real extent the Champions league and Europa league fill that function of the playoff system in europe

"If you look at baseball right now, which is probably America's worst sport in terms of money dictating team talent, only half the playoff teams this year fell in the top half in spending, and a fifth were in the bottom third"

Generally teams spending money have more success than teams that don't.

Almost all of the WS winners over the past 20-25 years have been in the top ten in spending and most in the top 5.

The Royals in 2015, the Marlins in 2003 are the only two not in the top half in spending. Royals barely at #16 and Marlins at #25.

The only other winner outside the top 10 was the White Sox in 2005 at #13 I believe.

Meanwhile the Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1992 and have gone to the playoffs 19 of the last 25 years.

Since the new Dodgers ownership took over from the bankruptcy mess the team was in, the have won 90+ games all five years and made the playoffs all five years.

Yes in baseball you can see some of the smaller payroll teams sneak into the playoffs for a couple years and then fade back to the bottom of the standings for decades until everything falls into place again, but you generally see the same, high payroll teams in the playoffs year after year after year.

The NCAA is holding back top tier soccer in the United States.

@Kansas

I 100% agree with the top athletes comment. You see players switch sports from Basketball to Baseball and all over the place, and with only moderate training their amazing instincts and physicality let them still play to a highly proficient level.

@Ogion / @ghug

I slightly disagree, The Ligue 1 has gone under MASSIVE turnover in the past decade, and look at Serie A: Milan, Inter used to be Staple teams challenging for the title, and Udinese and Lazio were also natural front runners. Juve was always good but weren't always 100% dominant. Although Lazio has improved and the Milans look to turn things around, clubs like Roma and Napoli have surged in recent years. We've seen Fiorentina make it VERY high up a few years back...

As for La Liga, the Barca/Real paradigm is pretty set, i'll admit that, but Villarreal was a top contender not too long ago, and Valencia and Malaga have had some stars in the past too: plus Atletico won the league and are on the brink of UCL success.

Bundesliga we have Bayern. Dortmund will challenge nowadays, Schalke used to be big and RB Leipzig are a fascinating new money club, but that's a changing league.

the EPL is the money center, but there's still competition. Manchester United, Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham all look like good title bets, Arsenal and Liverpool are on the outskirts... and old staples like Leeds, Aston Villa, Blackburn and Fulham have all dropped off in recent decades.

It's not entirely uncompetitive, it's just slow-changing. MLS is EXTREMELY competitive, but overall very weak. I mean Leicester won the EPL, and everyone seems to forget that when talking about these things. Tottenham went from a mid table side to near-title winners in only a few seasons.

Sure money plays a role but the european spots especially in england are always up for grabs. Southampton, West Ham, Everton, Stoke a few years back... they've all made runs for it.

Kansas is completely right. So right there is almost nothing to say.

Kuta touches on an important point. Title 9 in the NCAA means that female sports get about as much money as the men. Because so fewer women care about sports than men, the women's programs get pushed out of necessity.

Also, the two men's sports that make money (basketball and football) compete with the men's sports that don't (soccer, wrestling, etc.) and because money talks, men's soccer walks.

Certainly, although most of our better players are heading to pro organizations and skipping college, which will help. Jordan Morris will probably be the last college player to get a cap.

McKennie, Pulisic, Carter Vickers, Palmer Brown, Sargent, Wright, all are heading to professional clubs in their teens.

@Yanik, obviously they're not completely uncompetitive, because then nobody would watch, but they're much more stagnant than American leagues in any sport. The argument was that lack of promotion/relegation holds American leagues back, whereas the evidence points to the opposite, at least to an extent.

@Kansas, I used baseball precisely because it has the most money problems of the major American sports. Compare it to to the BPL, where Tottenham is really the only recent example of a non-top spending team even competing for the title and it still looks pretty good.

10-4 ghug.

MLB has the most money problems of the major American sports because most of the money comes from the local media deals, not the national network deals like the other sports which gives the huge divide in resources between big and small market.

But when you only have 2 teams outside the top half in payroll win the championship in the last 25-30 years, that is not good at all.

Some of the small market teams give the illusion of more parity than there really is cause those teams can't sustain their success like the big boys can.

The big boys almost always take 7-8 of the playoff spots and then you have a rotating mix of the small market teams who peak for a few years than drift back to mediocrity.

The Royals made back to back WS in 14 and 15 but hadn't made the playoffs since 1985 and now look to struggle for quite some time.

The Indians are hot these last two years but have sporadic success since those powerful teams of the late 90's.

The Pirates made three straight playoff trips in 13-15 but before that hadn't even had a winning season since 1992.

MLB is much more like BPL than not IMO.

There are always *some* small market teams that are relevant though. They're not the same ones, which is problematic on a larger scale, but Leicester was the first team outside of Man U, Man City, Chelsea, and Arsenal to win the league since Blackburn did it in 1995, and they've already largely dropped out of relevance again. In the same timeframe, baseball has had 12 different world series winners and 20 different teams in the world series. Not a single team has missed the playoffs. To me, that says it's more competitive, even if it's nowhere close to being sufficiently so.

"To me, that says it's more competitive, even if it's nowhere close to being sufficiently so."

Perhaps, but not by much.

I think it also has to do with the differences in the sports. As was discussed in the baseball thread, even the worst teams still win 40% of the time and the best teams rarely win more than 60% of the time.

I think that has more to do with the "more" competitive balance than payrolls. Payroll just allows far more margin of error.

The small market teams have to have everything go right to get their small window of success. The Royals franchise got set back years at least with the tragic death of Yordano Ventura this last offseason while a big market team could more easily overcome that.

@ghug

i guess i understand what you mean... i guess i'm just biased in what i think "competitive" means and that's my problem. you're right the american sports are much more volatile

The more fundamental problem is that few in the US care.

The point is to make the league competitive against other leagues. It's all very well having 6 different champions of MLS in 6 years, but if they're all garbage compared to other leagues then there isn't any improvement going on there. Not to mention that changing your players every year isn't a great way to make those players better, is it? Stability and experience help there - along with having something to fight for. As for half the BPL being uncompetitive - that's rather untrue. Sure, across a season the usual teams usually end up at the top... But on any given week, any team can beat any other team (apart from Crystal Palace). There's not such a huge gulf that you have automatic victories for anyone. The reigning Champions, Chelsea, lost at home to Burnley on the opening day. Stoke have beaten Arsenal and drawn with Man United already this season.

Now, if your argument is that drafting as opposed to prom/rel makes the league more *interesting*... You might have a point. Certainly, it's less predictable. But does it make the teams/players better? I don't think so. I would be interested to see a combination of Promotion & Relegation done alongside American transfer rules though, as I think their pay caps and transferring rules are what really make those sports have so many different winners, rather than the lack of tiers.

"The point is to make the league competitive against other leagues"

That will never happen.

The MLS will never be at the level of the top European leagues.

It could be at the level of the South American Leagues.