USA WC headlines?

Yeah, that is a good one.

 

Given the time between the match ending and the next day's paper, I'd much prefer anything but a straight gamer. Give the readers some analysis they wouldn't have already heard 17 times on ESPN/the Internet/radio, etc.

 

I just want to point out, and this is as good a place as any, and I'm really not meaning to rain on U.S. (other) football fans' parade, but I've heard a lot about how this U.S. progress at the World Cup is going to be a game-changer in the history of the sport here. And I just want to point out that:

NASL was supposed to be a game-changer.
The explosion of youth soccer was supposed to be a game-changer.
The 1994 World Cup was supposed to be a game-changer.
The 1999 Women's World Cup was supposed to be a game-changer.
MLS was supposed to be a game-changer.

The game hasn't changed, and I'm not gleeful about this and have nothing against the sport, and if it wants to become a big sport in the U.S., that's OK by me.

But history is against it, that's all I'm saying.

And this U.S. victory, while it was exciting and revved people up, did not reach miracle status, at least not to me.

 

Ah, but they have changed US Soccer. Each and every one of them.

NASL helped create the late 70s/early 80s youth soccer environment in which guys like Cobi Jones, Eric Wynalda, and Alexi Lalas were developed. That youth soccer environment pushed those guys through to be able to qualify for 1990 so that the hosting bid in 1994 wasn't an abject embarrassment.

Hosting in 1994 created MLS, which while not the Premier League, has easily been the most successful soccer league in the US. It's developed players for the US National Team, and while those players are learning much more while playing overseas, they're gaining early game experience through the USMNT youth team and MLS that allows them to have some chance of surviving overseas.

The MLS is now also drawing internationally known players (Beckham, Thierry Henry) who are looking to still play but may be in the sunset of their careers. The next step is to progress to the point where those players are in the prime of their careers, not at the tail end.

Better competition stateside has been created because of MLS, which means that the US is a bit more balanced in the national team. It's not just the European club players who can succeed at the World Cup level.

Not to mention that more exposure to soccer in the US has led to dramatically increased TV rights fees for major European championships (Euro 08 did well on ESPN here in the US), the Premier League and Champions League (airing on major networks, including Fox for the CL final), and the World Cup.

There is much work to be done. This win - and any future win in this World Cup - doesn't change anything immediately. I think that's where you're stumbling a bit. But helps keep the progression started with the NASL and the emergence of youth soccer, helping the development of younger, better players who could become USMNT members, and help the emergence of soccer in the US.

 

Every step is a step in a positive direction.

A semifinal run by the USMNT here would be a giant leap for soccer in America — no question. However, anyone who is hoping for a "Big Bang" moment where soccer suddenly explodes into a sport on par with the NFL, NBA and MLB overnight will be disappointed. Soccer haters love to point to this, but at the same time they can't point to any equivalent watersheds in those other sports.

Even the 1958 NFL Championship game didn't result in an abrupt burst in household popularity. The NFL grew over time, just like MLB, NBA and NHL did.

And let's not forget the upcoming labor strife in a couple of those sports. It took baseball a decade to recover.

 

Where have you been reading this? Those people don't know what they are talking about.

Here's one columnist who is talking out of his butt.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0625-plaschke-20100625,0,5327726.column

 

If you think the game hasn't changed, then you just aren't paying attention.

Or did soccer always command 9-figure TV rights fees and draw audiences early in the morning that beat other major sports' prime-time finals?

 

Why is the WC headline thread "as good a place as any" to post this?

 

I'll say this, then shut up. When a U.S. World Cup game can pack pubs in my little corner of South Mississippi at 9 o'clock on a Wednesday morning and get people jumping up and down screaming and yelling like it was the Saints winning the Super Bowl, then you know soccer has arrived at a significant point in its development in the U.S. This may be as close as we ever get to a Boom! moment for soccer in America.

BTW, my paper kind of played it down, as far as the headline goes: "U.S. moving on." We did have it as the CP on the sports front with a great picture of Donovan holding the American flag in the postgame celebration, along with a sidebar (which I wrote, thank you) and a photo on the crowd at the bar where I watched the game.

 

There's a big difference between people packing bars for a USMNT game and packing a bar for the average MLS game or whatever form U.S.-based soccer may take in the future. When it's U.S. against the world, so to speak, Americans will support the team, regardless of the sport. When it's Kansas City vs. Seattle, no one will ever give a fuck.

 

Why does there have to be a US-based form for the sport to be popular here?

 

Great point. There doesn't. MLS is crap and I don't see that changing. I'll can sit in front of my TV and watch two teams play in England just as well as if they were in Chicago.