Posted
by Chris Wristen
June 22, 2006 at 12:20 p.m.
U.S. soccer team's World Cup embarrassment
Less than 15 minutes after the United States men's soccer team bowed out of the 2006 World Cup with a whimper, the mudslinging already was in full force.Sports talk radio clowns from both Kansas City and the national scene already were spewing venom about how nobody cares about soccer. The "I told you so" line rolled off numerous tongues.Take this stab from national guy Jim Rome: "Thanks for playing. Now we hope to never hear from you again!"Yup, most of the media got its wish with the United States getting bounced from the Cup in pool play. Those who never liked soccer got another golden opportunity to kick the sport.Of course, this team deserved some kicking for its miserable Cup showing. Sure, the Americans turned in a pretty heroic effort to tie Italy on Saturday despite playing with just nine players - the result of an official [(Uruguay's Jorge Larrionda)][1] who did everything within his power to desecrate the game. But look at the opener against the Czech Republic and the lackluster effort the Americans, and star Landon Donovan in particular, put forth. Maybe the Americans were nervous. Maybe there were too many expectations on the world's No. 5-ranked team.Or maybe the ranking was a joke in the first place.Whether the U.S. ever deserved the No. 5 ranking, media flacks all around the country are eager and willing to roast this squad as a joke.Thursday's 2-1 loss to Ghana was the icing on the cake for soccer critics who prefer to ignore the sport during the years between each World Cup. Ghana was playing without two of its top players and needed only a tie to advance to the second round of the Cup and eliminate the U.S.A sketchy foul call in the box late in stoppage time gave Ghana the go-ahead goal on a penalty kick just before halftime. That came just minutes after the Americans tied the game with their first goal of the Cup.So here we are with soccer in the United States. The so-called "best team America has ever sent to the World Cup" comes home 0-2-1 after having scored only one goal (the other one actually was scored for the U.S. by Italy). The difference between this year's team and the one four years ago was that the 2002 squad played with more passion, more desire, more fury than this club.With the media already seizing the moment to kick the sport while it's back down, this team's early exit could have a devastating effect on United States soccer. Many of the fans that flocked Major League Soccer after the 2002 Cup will come away frustrated this time around and believe U.S. soccer has taken a step back in the last four years. Those who may have embraced the game with a strong showing this year will instead stay away. The voices that have been so critical of the game in the past will grow louder.It's hard to believe, but United States soccer has fallen back near rock-bottom. As a fan of the game, that gives me great concern for the future.Food for thought:I had this debate with some friends last week. Here's the question: Are more Americans interested in the women's or men's national soccer team when the World Cup rolls around? The women have won the thing, and the men have yet to get past quarterfinals. [1]: http://www.soccerblog.com/2006/06/referee_jorge_larionda_was_sus.htm
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Rigg (Mike Rigg) says…
Wow...that was some quick bloggin.
First off, this country will never fully care about soccer. So let's stop pretending.
I agree with your point about the Americans' lack of passion. But let's face it -- Ghana was a better team.
I think the seeding process needs to be re-examined. I'm pretty sure both the US and the Czechs could beat half the teams that are moving on.
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
our offense was abysmal, one goal in three games?!?
there is hope for pockets of fan support, but on a greater level, and as for the country embracing the MLS, it probably is hoping for too much to expect the same passion experssed for the NFL, NBA and MLB.
This is a country that has made a sport out of commuting (NASCAR)!
*sigh* guess we'll be waiting another four years until South Africa ...
Cwrist was pretty quick on the draw! :)
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
Rigg, totally agree that this country will never fully care about soccer. No arguments here. I do think if the US were to have pushed back to the quarters again this time, or to actually make a move even deeper, then we'd see a greater jump in fan interest (not huge, but it would be noticeable) The U.S. could win the World Cup and it still wouldn't move soccer near the interest level that a sport like hockey has here.
It's also agreeable that the U.S. was in one of the toughest pools we've seen in recent memory in the World Cup. Regardless, to only score one goal in the entire tournament is pathetic. That makes 18 straight international games that Landon Donovan has gone without scoring a goal. Is that a result of defenses keying on him more, or is it a result of him being an overhyped star?
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
Similarly: Can U.S. soccer really take a step back from back of the line?
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
Let's convert this to terms most of us can understand:
If soccer equalled basketball:
Brasil = UCLA
Germany = Kentucky
Italy = Indiana
England = Kansas
U.S.A. = ???
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Rome is such a tool.
That said, this isn't about the US being able to "embrace" a sport that some consider to be on-par with baseball, football, hockey and basketball in terms of quality of entertainment and aesthetic sophistication (if the latter can be said about ANY sport). Soccer has been woven into the fabric of most of the world in such a way that has never been *approached* in the US. Why, I don't know, but to attribute it to US sports fans being "dumb" and unable to grasp the aesthetically pleasing nuances of soccer because of some collective short-attention span is absolutely absurd. Professional golf is popular here, for instance, just as it is in the UK.
The real question should be Why, if NASCAR and Golf and spelling bees are popular here, hasn't curling taken off?
firecracker (anonymous) says…
This is potentially a huge setback for U.S. soccer. It seems like it had been a gradual build from 94 or 98 and peaking in 02. With all the hype going into this World Cup (most of it unjustified), the final results are more than disapointing.
Would I like to see the sport grow in the U.S.? Sure. Do I want everyone to like it? No. As snotty as it comes off, I don't want the "NASCAR contingent" to "get" soccer.
I forget if it was Lalas or Wynalda, but one of them made the comment that the U.S. team members need to be playing on European clubs rather than the MLS, simply to be consistently playing against that level of competition. American Soccer as a whole needs to decide if they want to focus on building the MLS or succeeding on a world level.
That all said, do I cheer the women on in their Cup? Absolutely. Am I ever as juiced as I have been for the men's games this month? Not even close. It's simply a whole different level.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
I forgot to get to the point...which was that it's a cultural/social enigma that can't *possibly* be examined by comparing the physical properties/rules of these sports.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
Excellent point about US players needing to play in Europe. The level of competition in the MLS is so far below the European leagues that it does little to prepare the American players for the World Cup.
Also, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect all Americans to "get" or "embrace" soccer. You don't have to like every sport. For instance, I'm not a big fan of nascar. It's a sport I just don't "get" nor care about. The same thing goes for horse racing. But, when it comes to being competitive in an event on the world scale, I'd still like for my country's team to be successful. It seems to me there are a number of media folks who practically root against America in soccer simply so they can continue to ignore soccer and hate on it.
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
I just heard a good point on 610 sports:
They did not believe that the Brasilians had a single member of their national team playing in their domestic league.
All the great players go over to the Euro leagues.
I guess we're going to have to realize that the MLS is just a stepping stone, and not villify guys who go abroad ...
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Yeah, I agree. Dare I say most members of the sports media are biased against soccer.
Pardon me for going off-topic but I just want to take the time to reiterate here that Jim Rome is an asshole and just a lame human being.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
sevenyear, good point. If I remember correct, during the last World Cup there were people who ripped on Keller for playing in Europe instead of staying home in American leagues. He was one of the few who seemed to understand that he needed to go play with the best to become one of the best.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
Another thought: Was Claudio Reyna carted off with an injury after giving a nice handoff to the Ghana player for Ghana's first goal of the game? Or was Reyna's pride bruised to severely to get back up? The Ghana guy made a clean steal on the play to score, but what was Reyna trying to accomplish by standing still and playing with the ball as an opposing forward charged him. He didn't seem to even be looking to pass. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
fletch (anonymous) says…
sevenyearhawk: to complete your basketball analogy U.S.A. = Stanford. Never been one of the big powers, but puts up a decent mid-level team year after year.
As far as soccer in America goes, I think American's just don't "get" soccer culture. Look at any World Cup game, you've got thousands of fans coming from halfway across the globe to paint themselves in national colors, wave giant banners, sing, and chant for 2 hours straight. And I'm not talking about singing and chanting like Allen Fieldhouse. These groups have organized songs and chants for their teams and players that go on hour minutes only to transition into the next chant. I was lucky enough to see a World Cup game in France a few years ago and I can say I've never seen a sporting event like it in America.
Part of that is that for most countries, soccer/futbol is THE sport. They aren't inundated with as many leagues, sports, and teams as we have. They might have some national or regional club teams going on, but when the national team gets together and plays, the countries stop what they are doing. In the same way Lawrence shuts down during a basketball game as everybody sits at home or goes to a bar, that's what entire countries do. America just doesn't work that way. We're regional sports fans. We like our alma maters and our local pro teams, but we don't get jazzed about national teams, even for the Olympics (see USA Basketball's continuous decline).
That lack of national identity for a sport is also what kills us during these competitions. National teams play together and practice for months a years everywhere else. Key players might be in Europe, but they make it back for training sessions during off seasons. Because of that, they have a long time to gel as a team and learn just how fast their teammatse can run at full sprint, whether they like to recieve a ball on their left side or right side, who needs help getting out of a double team and who doesn't, etc. We just field an All Star team, let them practice for a month, put out some Nike promos, and call it a team. That sort of mentality will always prevent America from getting to the higher levels of the World Cup. It's also why USA Basketball gets crushed, Olympic Hockey is a joke, and our World Baseball Classic team choked. We just don't have a structure in palce for these teams to compete worldwide, but then again we don't care that much either.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
in the defense of sports talk radio, 810 whb spent a lot of time this morning (prime time for radio) talking about the world cup. I've also heard them talk about the wizards quite a bit....but really they have to cater to their audience...if people loved soccer, you'd better believe that these radio shows and sports media personalities would be talking about it more.
Bob Fescoe, though, is a complete idiot. I cringe every time I hear one of the other guys on the radio say something like "Uh, no Bob." He's just, well, dumb.
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
thanks fletch, I also got votes from friends for usa=umkc or even Mizzou (no Final Four appearences) Stanford sounds good to me!
On the topic of sportsradio. I admit I like Jim Rome because he just doesn't focus on sports. He'll have authors, musicans, actors, etc.
and I've tried to get into Soren Petro (have something against him from he's debut with Don Fortune)
anyway, Rome was ranting on and on about the USA soccer failings, and while it was a bit caustic, I thought to myself:
there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Maybe if the general public does start to p!ssed, perhaps something will change, in the sports culture, the MLS or with the national squad.
Perhaps I'm expecting too much ...
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
Upon further review, I think I'm going to revise this:
If soccer equalled basketball:
Brasil = UCLA
Germany = Kentucky
Italy = Indiana
England = North Carolina (Beckham/Jordan)
France = Duke
U.S.A = Stanford
Mexico = California(?)
Argentina = Kansas
I've been thinking about Diego Maradona and The Hand of God goal compared to Danny Manning and the Miracles; both groups of supporters got a lot of mileage out of those championships.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
I think Soren Petro is one of the finest sports media people I've ever heard. He's a sports genius, in my opinion, he's absolutely hilarious, and he's not a complete ass/jock like so many of them.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
fletch,
I think your analysis is right on. If you drive down Mass. St. during a basketball game, there's no traffic whatsoever because everybody is either at the game or watching the game at home or at a bar. But there are so many regional teams, whether professional or college, in the United States that most people embrace them. I wonder if that has anything to do with the size of the country, the fact that there are 50 states, or maybe that more people go to college here (is this true?) than in other countries so those college ties are stronger than national ties.
And you're right about how Americans are inundated with so many sports, whereas the rest of the world primarily rallies around soccer. A friend of mine told me last week about how he attended a non-U.S. world cup game when he was younger. He said what made the experience memorable was the atmosphere created by the other fans. I guess in some ways it's like another culture. I'd like to see more U.S. fans adopt that same attitude, but that is wishful thinking.
sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says…
to add that what everyone has been saying about being converted abroad, I became a big soccer fan only after being in Mexico in 1990 and seeing Mexico City, then populaiton 20 million, come to a noticable standstill (like Mass St during KU games) during the matches. And I don't think that they were even in it that year.
this was reinforced living in Florida with such an international culture, but even there, they couldn't support the Mutiny or Fusion ... they also have problems with the Marlins, Dolphins and Rays, but that's another topic.
When I was in Mexico in the past, I've looked for their colleges clothing, and it just didn't exist. Even their regional teams' attire/novelties were difficult to locate.
Maybe it does have something to do with our territorial nature versus a national, unifying presence.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
another way of looking at it, from an American fan's perspective, is the fact that rooting for our regional teams enhances our game-viewing experience. Think about it. If you're a KU fan, you probably know at least somebody (or a lot of people) who went to/root for Missouri or K-State. When those teams play your team, you e-mail back and forth, text message or call to harass each other after your team beats theirs. That's part of the fun of having rivalries -- we know people who are for the other team, and therefore we become more engaged in the matchup. On the flip side, very few of us probably know a bunch of Italians (sevenyear being the exception) who we may have watched the game with and spent the week trash-talking with about the matchup. I suppose that could be one reason Americans seem to prefer regional teams over national teams.
rpk (Robert Kerley) says…
"I wonder if that has anything to do with the size of the country, the fact that there are 50 states, or maybe that more people go to college here (is this true?) than in other countries so those college ties are stronger than national ties."
That's a good question. Neither China nor Russia made it this year, and they're huge countries. I wonder if they have a lack of support/interest due to regionally diverse populations and geography?
You've got to admit, though, there were A LOT of US fans at those games, and there were A LOT of people paying attention here in the states. I think the sports media's comments are due largely to the fact that soccer fans are not their target audience, although we are probably a sizeable audience nevertheless. I did see a few ESPN spots pre-World Cup showing how the fuss of the Super Bowl is miniscule compared to international soccer games, apparently in a bid to "educate". Nice try, but a large portion of the population just won't get into it 1) because of their tainted perception and; 2) there aren't enough time-outs.
Maybe if they made a goal worth 7 points? That would have made the Brazil - Japan game 28-7 ;^]
thomgreen (anonymous) says…
I'm not getting the Beckham/Jordan comparison. It should be Pele/Jordan in my mind. But I digress.
I agree with the comment that either Lalas or Wynalda made about our players needing to get into the International arena rather than the local arena. I applaud what the MLS is trying to do with the grass roots effort, but it seems like it has become more of a landing spot for former great International players to come play during their twilight years rather than the top notch competition our young players need to be playing against.
I really, REALLY, want the U.S. to be more competitive in the international arena. I want to be able to cheer them on and feel proud for them (I am proud of them, but it's hard to argue that we're number 5 in the world, no matter what FIFA wants to say).
Something needs to be done. Some sort of shake up, I just can't put my finger on what.
fletch (anonymous) says…
I brought this up with a friend during today's morning match, and I thought I'd share his response:
In America, we treat sports as a profession. Even college sports are treated professionally with clothing endorsements, TV contracts, mega-stadiums, etc. Because of that, we defautly create a hierarchy of which sports matter most. Those that have more money being thrown around, have more TV time, etc get equated with being more important (much like we'd say a doctor is more important than a janitor). So when soccer doesn't get much play besides the World Cup, it's going to be treated as such.
In Europe and South America, Soccer is considered a national institution in most places, right up there with the government. So that's the level of respect it gets. A national game is like a national address. You watch it for no other reason than everybody is going to be talking about it the next day (that and you've only got 4 or 5 stations). It's just a different mentality to approaching the sport. It doesn't mean the American way of dealing with soccer is wrong, just different.
The Americans could radically change their program for the World Cup, but it would pretty much kill MLS by taking away the stars for intensive 4 year training and international friendlies. In the meantime, Americans might just have to suck it up and learn that they're not always the best at something and can't thro money at a problem.
I have to mention my friend is originally from Brazil, thus the slight condensation towards American soccer. I've been watching the tourney in Dallas, and since I'm about a 15 minute bike ride from the FC Dallas stadium, I've been watching the games at the clubhouse there with 50 or 60 hardcore soccer fans every morning before work. I'd say half of them are foreign and were just happy to be able to watch with people that would yell, scream, and drink like they do. Admittedly, I shouldn't be having a morning beer before work, but it does bring me back to sitting in Jefferson's watching a Jayhawk basketball game.
cvillehawk (anonymous) says…
In the basketball analogy, I think USA = Gonzaga. Moved up from being a mid-major to a consistent participant in the tourney, but still can't even make it to the final four despite the hype.
rpk (Robert Kerley) says…
Some of our players do play abroad, albeit not in top tier teams. Here's an interesting article entitled "Why America Lacks World-Class Soccer Players":
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/0...
It seems to hit on a lot of the points in this discussion.
irnmadn88 (anonymous) says…
I think Jay Lenno summed it up pretty well...
Several milllion illegal immegrants and we can't find 11 who play soccer? I think I fell out of my chair when I heard that...
Americans as a whole lack soccer instinct. You can throw money at the problem all you want. It will make you faster, make you more individually skilled, and have good coaching. BUT, it will not improve the soccer instinct. The rest of the world knows soccer before they can walk...For Americans, soccer is an activity instead of a way of life sandwiched between video games and trips to the mall in a minivan.
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
I think the problem is that I when went to school there was no soccer team. Baseball, Football (which is my preferred sport) and Basketball have been around for decades and have a history. The only soccer player I can remember is the lady player who ripped her shirt after scoring a winning goal.
In time, it soccer will catch on will develop its own tradition. It is a sport that is very affordable and young kids are playing in leagues and in school. It does not matter whether or not it is big as the other sports.
But, my reason for posting is to express agreement with the negative comments with Jim Rome. He is idiot who never played a down for any organized sports team. But, he does not make money unless he says obnoxious things to draw attention to himself. I do not watch Rome's show, but didn't some football player tear up his set when Rome insulted him a few years ago? If I remember correctly, Rome pretty much just ran off the set and did not do anything when he was actually called to the task.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
babboy, you're right. That was Jim Everett when Rome kept calling him Chris, in reference to the female tennis player.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
oh, and here's the video clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQ...
Hepburn (anonymous) says…
Immadn88 speaks some truth when he talks about there not being a "soccer" instinct. In some countries, everything is geared towards soccer. Kids live, eat and sleep soccer. For instance the commercial where the two kids select professional players who magically show up for a playground game. (How many of you get the joke about Franz Beckenbauer of Germany - 1974?) Yes, until that happens, the certainity of US success on the world stage won't happen.
But that's changing. I recently attended a wedding reception held in rural Franklin County just across the Douglas County line. While the 150+ guests were eating and talking, a group of kids, ages 4 to 12, played soccer. They didn't throw around a football or baseball; they organized something like a game and worked off their boredom while the adults socialized. That's the same sort of thing I've seen in Ecuador and Costa Rica. Both I and a principal of a major 6A high school noted that the game was soccer instead of something else.
The demographics of soccer are changing. Instead of being for the immigrants of New York, Chicago, St. Louis and LA, it is becoming the most athletic sport in America for females. Basketball is great, but you have to be 5'10" or better now days. Volleyball - not enough running. Softball - even less running. Soccer fills the needs for the all round athletes. As these females play soccer, graduate and become moms, what sport will they introduce their kids to, take to practice and even coach? The reality is that growth in womens soccer now, will only increase growth in mens / womens soccer in years to come.
In the early '80's, some KC and Wichita high schools offered "club" soccer. In 1986, it became a sanctioned sport for boys. In 1992, it became a sanctioned sport for girls. Now, nearly 100 high schools play boys (and coed) soccer. Over 60 play girls soccer. Kansas soccer players have even made it into the MLS - most recently Andy Greenbaum, BV North, playing for the Columbus Crew.
Am I disappointed about the US performance in Germany? Yes. But, I'm still watching games. And, thinking of the alternatives, am I going to rush out and start following the Royals? (Have you ever turned on the radio and don't know who's at bat or in the field because none of the names sound familiar?)
Soccer is now the 5th most participant sport in high school. Every year, without fail it continues to grow, World Cup failure or success. This year will not be an exception.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
I actually caught most of the Mexico-Argentina game today. Fantastic game! The game-winner in overtime was an incredible shot. Still, it bums me out a little bit to watch knowing that the U.S. is long gone.
cwrist (Chris Wristen) says…
Hepburn, thanks for your insights. That's an interesting point about the growth of the game in recent years, as well as the kids choosing to play soccer instead of the other major sports. While I do think the sport will continue to grow, my one primary disappointment with soccer at right now is that it is considered a minor sport to a large extent even on the college scene. We see that locally, where the Big 12 doesn't even sponsor men's soccer. The Big 12 could be a dominant soccer conference given the strength of players coming out of the Kansas City and St. Louis areas among other places. At least Kansas, K-State and Missouri would have strong programs. All of the top talent in the area has to go elsewhere if they want to play in a big conference or have a chance to move to the professional ranks. UMKC has a program, as does Rockhurst, but those don't get nearly the exposure as a Kansas or a Missouri would. Players from Kansas City routinely have gone to schools like Michigan State, Notre Dame and Yale to play because the opportunities don't exist here. That really disappoints me about the Big 12.
Hepburn (anonymous) says…
The reason for no soccer in the Big 12 is money, money, money and Title 9.
To create a program at KU without staff, space and stadium would be expensive. How could KUAC justify cutting mens tennis and mens swimming several years ago, but adding mens soccer? I would love to see mens soccer at KU, but the emphasis right now is maintaining KU basketball and grooming KU football to be a national power.
It's money, money, money. Look at the overall growth of the KUAC budget in the last several years. And, it still falls millons behind Texas. The criteria is whether or not it will produce now or will it be subsidized by men's basketball for years. Football is taking up the excess funds at this time. And, look at the major empahsis placed on women's basketball. The pressure is on the women's game to produce not only a winner, but "black ink". Bonnie ball has to produce income. If she doesn't, it is Bonnie gone. Remember that Perkins came from Connecticut where the women's progam makes money.
The other component is Title 9. Without Title 9, the growth of womens sports would not have happened. If you add 25 to 30 men soccer players, where do you augment the number of your female players? At KU, and the rest of the Big 12, there isn't room for expansion on the women's side. Yes, K-State could add women's soccer and that would help. But, at many of the other schools, you'd have to look at sports like field hockey or women's lacrosse. (If soccer is a growing sport in the US, field hockey and lacrosse are downright alien to the Midwest. And, don't get me wrong, my wife played field hockey collegiately.)
Right now, the smaller colleges in Kansas have offered men's soccer for quite some time. It is a tremendous recruiting tool for them. Good / great students who are also good / great players are more willing to attend a smaller private school in Kansas if they can play soccer. This is a major part of their recruiting plans. UMKC and Rockhurst do offer men's programs in soccer, I believe at the Division 2 level. However, many of the best go outside the area to find programs. I suspect that many of those who go outside of Kansas would prefer to not stay at home.
The Big 12 area has a great deal of soccer talent. The biggest wouold be in Texas. Even though Texas is dominated by football, there are many talented players in that area. If the Big 12 were to have men's soccer, there would be no assurance that KU could dominate. Be competitive, yes, but not the only team in the conference. Look at successful mens programs at Creighton, Drake (coached by a former KU student / Baker coach), Tulsa, St. Louis U. and SMU (I think). Those are also programs which either don't have football or haven't emphasized Division 1 football as much as has KU / Big 12 in recent years.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
for every minute that a point is not scored, there should be an increasing chance of the ball exploding......that would get our interest.