Scholarship table
It's the comparative structure. Title IX around since 1972, which gave the USA a 20 year headstart developing players. We literally had a generation that grew up playing the sport in 1991, and another generation behind them that had a headstart on everyone else.When 1991 hit, for most countries it was the genesis of women's competitive soccer. They didn't have schools or clubs dedicated to training at nearly the level we did. And while we haven't won every time out, we've never finished worse than 3rd. That means we have 7 medals, the next closest nations are Germany and Sweden with 3 each. So the next two most prolific nations haven't accomplished as much combined as the USA.The Olympics, the other major international competition, has been even more USA dominated. We've won 4/6 gold medals since the inaugural competition in 1996 & also have a silver. So in 13 total major women's tournaments, we've won 7, taken 2nd twice, and third 3 times.Others are catching up. European clubs have added women's teams, Brazil has built from the grassroots, but we started with an edge that we have yet to cede. When you compare that to how the men's team was basically hatched from whole cloth in the 1980s, they were always behind the 8-ball while the women were always a few laps ahead of the field.
Another reason soccer will never grow in the US, they refuse to put half the games on premium channels.ESPN put every single match of Copa America, including the finals, on ESPN+
Eh. Fox is televising all of the Women’s World Cup and most of the Gold Cup. NBC of course has the premier league. And Fox shows the Bundesliga. There is plenty of soccer available pretty much every weekend.
NBCs coverage has gotten worse though.You used to be able to watch every game on the weekend but they went to the premium model as well with NBC Gold.
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold. He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.
I feel like this team will backdoor their way into the Gold Cup Final, then get blasted by Mexico and everyone will say "oh, it's all okay." Something like 2011 where we had the 2-0 lead & lost 4-2.
So the US opens up their Gold Cup with a game against Guyana tonight, and honestly, I don't remember the last time I was less excited for a competitive game. Between the abysmal tune up games, and the Women tearing up France, it seems pretty "meh" to me right now. I fully expect them to underachieve (anything less than a finals loss to Mexico is underachieving) and then spout the same old things that everyone has heard before. After the T+T debacle, there should have been a full reset top to bottom, and that just hasn't happened. We're playing the same style, with the same crop of players, and the USSF as a whole seems largely unchanged. Berhalter is too Arena like. Cordeiro is too Gulati like, and the fact that Michael Bradley is still making match-day squads should tell you everything you need to know.
Too many hands in the cookie jar when it comes to ussf, USA soccer, MLS, etc to make any real change.Not to mention conflict of interest between domestic clubs (MLS) and the national team.Does any top-tier soccer country have the same discussions about what clubs the player pool should come from? I'm guessing no, but maybe I'm wrong.Just admit the MLS isn't the best and don't get all butthurt when we what players from other clubs
No, because most top countries DGAF about where their talent is going provided they are getting run and developing.
Your overall point is well taken, and I'm not really defending the push for young American players to stay stateside, but this is a key phrase here. With some notable exceptions, young American players who've gone overseas find themselves glued to the bench or loaned to second-division clubs, where they don't develop. I'm thinking of much hyped players like Julian Green, Danny Szetela, Kenny Cooper, Sal Zizzo.The idea of development by competing against the best in the world - which isn't the case in MLS, obviously - makes a ton of sense, but I suspect a player develops first and foremost by playing, regardless of where. And so playing a lot in MLS probably is better for development than playing sparingly in Europe.
But if we start seeing preference for other MLS guys as these guys progress and develop abroad, thats a significant favoritism issue we've seen, and Klinnsman rightly railed against.