Unless you’ve been studying the US youth players in recent years, it’s difficult to cheer for your national side when the players donning the red, white, and blue of the USA are just as unknown as the opposition. Against Mexico, interim coach Dave Sarachan fielded a team with an average age of 23. Considering the US isn’t known for producing precocious talent that makes a splash abroad – Pulisic being one of the few exceptions – most of the 23-man roster were unknowns to the majority of the US fan base. And if the recent friendlies are any indication of future form, they might stay that way.

Since dropping the assistant label for only the second time in his professional coaching career, Sarachan has been more than generous with his call-ups. Thirty three players with less than ten caps to their names have been called up since his takeover. Sarachan’s role seems to be less that of a coach and more akin to a job recruiter. The incoming coach will no doubt be aware of all the options he has at his disposal, but as the friendlies roll on, this policy of showcasing the various youthful options almost highlights the lack of bonafide talent the squad has coming through the ranks.

With the US in a limbo of sorts and friendlies having been rendered seemingly meaningless, here are some changes I’d like to see take place when the US faces Colombia on October 11th that will inject some sort of direction back into the game.

1. Look Dangerous Going Forward

Before the criticism begins, credit must be given to the USMNT’s defense. Recent friendlies against Portugal, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Paraguay, Bolivia, France and Mexico all saw the back line either concede a single goal or keep a clean sheet. Conversely, the squad has only scored more than one goal on a single occasion since Sarachan’s reign began. Even though the side we’ll see step out against Colombia won’t be our A team, from the visceral standpoint of the spectator we still want to see goals.

2. Sarachan On The Bench

The USMNT doesn’t play a competitive match until qualifying starts for the World Cup in 2019. With meaningful matches not to take place until next year, naming a coach isn’t a pressing matter. The US Soccer Federation has taken advantage of the lull in competitive play to meticulously wade through the field of applicants. Such patience will ensure that a desired candidate will be found and demonstrates the federation’s calm demeanor despite not qualifying for the 2018 World Cup.

The search may be over as soon as early December according to the USMNT general manager Earnie Stewart. The date offered by Stewart is conveniently the month when the MLS comes to a close. Coincidence? I think not.

3. Realistic Glimpse of the Future

I’m all for having a look at the newest generation of American youngsters, but ever since we failed to qualify for the World Cup we haven’t been provided even a glimpse of what our newest A team will look like. With Dempsey retired and Bradley, Guzan, Cameron, and Johnson all in decline, the USMNT will no doubt look much different to the side that lost to T&T in 2017. If you’re a US fan, can you confidently name a player apart from Pulisic who would definitely start for the US in a competitive match?

The legions of young players called up haven’t given US fans the optimism they so desperately need after their first failed World Cup campaign since 1986. A good showing against Colombia with a side comprised of youth and experience would make fans get behind the team again. The meager 32,000 that turned up for the national side’s match against a fully stocked Brazil team goes to show that supporting the USMNT is not a priority.

4. At Least One Young Player That Captivates

Even after a handful of games in charge, Sarachan’s team selection has become very predictable. If we’re going to see unknowns step on the pitch for yet another game, we’d like to see something we haven’t before: genuine skill.

After the Mexico game, all the talk has been on Tyler Adams, and rightly so. He scored the sole goal of the match, and did so as a New Yorker on September 11. It’s a beautiful story, but the fairytale narrative overshadows his performance. Apart from the center-back pairing – which has been solid for some time now – there were no bright spots on the pitch.

Adams is someone the team will hope to count on in the future as he looks ready to transfer to RB Leipzig in the winter. But an American youngster on the books of a quality European club doesn’t immediately translate to success. Julian Green was predicted to be the next big thing for US soccer after appearing for Bayern – at the same age Adams currently is – but hasn’t panned out. Let’s hope Adams doesn’t go the way of Green or Freddy Adu.

Fans aren’t asking for a dominant performance from a starlet, just something akin to what Diego Lainez did for Mexico against the US. As Matt Miazga uncouthly noted, he may be small but size doesn’t matter when your defender is on all fours and bowing after having been cut in half by a slaloming run. Right, Wil Trap?

Over the course of the tournament, the USA won the first Women’s World Cup in 1991 with an aggregate score of 25-7 at a time when it looked like women’s soccer was destined to be ruled by only a few progressive countries willing to support the game. Yet, years later, an unexpected parity has blossomed in the sport.

Being that the women’s game has only been accepted by many countries until recently, there’s a great opportunity for change both good and bad to take place.

Here are five countries that have experienced significant changes in recent years:

1. Tournament Favorites – France

In the seven prior World Cups, France was never pegged as a tourney favorite. Yet a seasoned squad stacked with quality players and a country still reeling from World Cup glory has consolidated their odds. Even if the country wasn’t playing host to the 2019 edition of the World Cup, they’d still be considered favorites.

Despite the recent retirement of arguably the best France player of all time, Louisa Nécib Cadamuro, France is still stocked with quality players. Only France can boast having two players – Wendie Renard and Amandine Henry – on the final shortlist of 2018’s Best FIFA Women’s Player Award. The squad France will bring to next summer’s Women’s World Cup will be mostly comprised of players that have played in multiple major tournaments and are now entering the prime of their careers.

It should also be mentioned that France has one of the best women’s domestic leagues in the world, and that Lyon, a side that is nearly a mirror reflection of the national team, recently won the domestic title and the most recent UEFA Champion’s League.

2. Dark Horse – The Netherlands

Typically countries that compete well are populous and have a winning tradition. Yet with only 17 million citizens and four World Cup games to its name, the Netherlands has neither.

The women’s Dutch side announced itself in world football after winning Euro 2017. On their road to victory, they swept aside Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and England – countries with far greater footballing success than their own. Winning such a competitive tournament means that Holland can play with the greats.

Leading their squad is the 25-year-old Barcelona midfielder Lieke Martens. She was an unknown commodity a few year back, but has burst onto the scene as of recent after winning the UEFA Women’s Players of the Year 2016-17 and the Best FIFA Women’s Player in 2017 awards.

With a current world ranking of 9th position, and fans eager to compensate for the men’s team failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, Holland has all the pieces in place to make a deep run in next year’s tournament.

3. Most Progress – Mexico

After three group stage exits, Mexico currently holds a -24 World Cup goal difference. Only three other nations have worse records at the World Cup. Yet despite the national embarrassment of the past, Mexico has positioned itself to raise the glasses of more than a few jubilant fans.

Mexico walked into the 2018 CAC Women’s Games as favorites and walked out with a chalice in hand. With convincing wins over Venezuela in the semis and Costa Rica in the final, Mexico showed that opposing coaches might want to do some scouting before stepping onto the pitch. While winning the Central American and Caribbean Games might not be the equivalent of a European championship, it is indicative of progress.

Even more so than winning an international football competition, Mexico has shown progress through investing in the women’s game. Women’s football in Mexico has perhaps made the greatest strides of any nation ahead of the 2019 World Cup. 2016 was the inaugural year of the Liga MX Femenil, Mexico’s domestic women’s league. The league has largely been a success both on the pitch and in the stands. The second leg of the 2017 final between Guadalajara and Pachuca saw 32,466 fans cheer on their sides.

Mexico won’t be challenging for a World Cup anytime soon, but they have shown that their national team is on the rise and may soon become the best women’s national side in Latin America.

4. Biggest Disappointment – Brazil

Brazil’s FA is the antithesis of Mexico. In 2017, players from the national team penned an open letter to their FA. The list of grievances included the unwarranted firing of the team’s first-ever female coach, lack of leadership opportunities offered to women within the organization, and a general lack of respect. As a result of the aforementioned injustices, stalwarts such as Cristiane, Rosana, Andreia Rosa, Fran, and Maurine chose to retire.

Despite the country’s history of neglect for women’s football – women’s football was banned until 1979 – Brazil has rallied against the current and provided the sport with some of the best female athletes in the world. In such chaotic times, Brazil has still managed results, finishing first in the 2018 Copa America and fourth in the Olympics.

Yet with the squad seemingly ready to implode, the resentment the women’s team has for its FA may come to a boil at the 2019 World Cup. The stagnation of Brazil’s FA may leave them in the dust as other nations choose to invest and support their women’s national sides.

5. Most Significant Off-Field Gains – New Zealand

Earlier this year, New Zealand’s FA became the first to offer both national teams equal benefits. While in late 2017, Norway became the first to provide their women’s team with equal pay, the Kiwis took it a step further by ensuring that both teams have the same travel budget.

Perhaps we won’t see New Zealand’s newfound equality manifest itself on the pitch in the form of high quality play in the 2019 World Cup, but such a decision no doubt galvanized the nation’s female footballers to adopt and excel in the sport.

The US women’s national side made economic gains as well having recently signed a collective bargaining agreement that gave players a 30% pay increase yet still falls short of pay equity.

The speculation surrounding the early history of soccer in Latin America is akin to a Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel.

Fantastical rumors surround the founding of club teams and murder abounds as conjectures and lies paint an uncertain picture of what soccer was really like a century ago. With few if any primary sources left to tell the tale, we must comb through the records to find reputable players and spectators that can provide insight into the state of soccer in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The following quotes act as snapshots of the ethos of a century ago and articulate the development of soccer in Latin America.

“During the voyage out from England, I had heard that cricket was played in the country, but supposed it would turn out to be cricket of that degenerate sort which one finds occasionally played by the English residents in different parts of Europe. So that when I got to the ground, and found an excellent pavilion, a scoring-box, visitors’ tent, the field marked out with flags, with the well-known letters M.C.C. (Mexico, not Marylebone, Cricket Club) marked upon them, and some eighteen or twenty players in flannels and cricket shoes, I was not a little astonished, and soon found out that I had to do with a very different sort of cricket to what I had expected.” – W.H. Bullock

As backwards as it may seem, cricket, not soccer, was at one time the most organized sport in Latin America. Heavy English investment throughout the Americas saw immigrant workers from the UK export the game of cricket. Having already been firmly established in the UK since the 18th century, it was only natural that English immigrants now working in the Americas would bring with them their favorite sporting pastime. Where there were English, there was cricket. One of the earliest cricket clubs, Mexico Cricket Club, was founded in Mexico City in 1827 by English mine owners and businessmen. 1842 was the inaugural year of Uruguay’s first cricket club, Victoria Cricket Club, founded in Montevideo.

By the mid-19th century, multiple cricket clubs could be found in nearly every country in the Americas. Even the USA caught cricket fever as evidenced by the cricketer and entrepreneur Fred Lillywire, “Cricket in Philadelphia has every prospect of becoming a national game,” before having its fervor quickly cooled by the boom of baseball. Despite cricket clubs popping up around the continent, only the British and those from the upper echelons of society really adopted soccer. Most locals equated the game with British imperialism. It wasn’t until the turn of the 20th century when soccer began to sink its roots into the fertile soil of Latin America.

“Made up in the main by smaller and quicker players… physically inferior compared to its rivals, Nacional abandoned physical encounters that were allowed back then… They chose dribbling, fast and short passes, quick sprints.” – Del fútbol héroico

As is to be expected, football in the Americas was largely influenced by the English. Having seeded the game in the Americas, the early style of soccer was identical to that of England, which is to say brutal, simple, and direct.

Nowadays we have come to associate Hispanic fútbol with that of flamboyance, individualism, and beauty, but it didn’t start off that way. While nearly all football clubs in the Americas were founded by Englishmen, Nacional of Uruguay was founded and fielded only by Uruguayans. Its willingness to break away from English influence led it to search for its own style of play. Instead of playing like a gang of brutes, the patriotic club decided to adapt its game to its personnel and emphasize dribbling and passing rather than route one play.

The charging of attendance fees also served as the impetus that turned soccer players into performers. A tactical philosophy that centered around quick passing and deceptive dribbling led Nacional to not only domestic but international greatness when the whole of the Nacional players were called to play for the Uruguayan national team in a match that ended with Uruguay winning their first international match against Argentina in 1903. Soon, through Scottish and nationalistic influence, fútbol played in the River Plate and throughout the Americas would come to find its own style of soccer.

“El Negro con el Alma Blanca” – Nickname of Afro-Uruguayan National Player Isabelino Gradin

The black with the white soul was what Uruguayan fans called their beloved national team player Isabelino Gradin who along with his teammate Juan Delgado –nicknamed The Black Juan- were the first two black players to play international football in 1916. Perhaps the two players would have gone down as self-effacing footnotes in the history of Latin American fútbol had it not been for an official complaint lodged by the Chilean Football Association accusing the Uruguayan side of having fielded two “African slaves” in their 4-0 loss of the first ever Copa America tournament. In the face of overt racism, Uruguay went on to win the tournament as well as the subsequent one. As can be inferred, even though Uruguay fielded black players, fans couldn’t help but comment on their blackness. While Uruguay may have been accepting of blacks in professional sports in the early 20th century, their neighbors to the north would only start welcoming players in the 50s. Brazilian writer Mario Filho summed it up when he lauded Pele and the 1958 World Cup winning Brazilian team with having “…completed the work [the abolition of slavery] of Princess Isabel.”

It wasn’t even until the mid-1960s when storied Brazilian club Fluminense started employing players of non-European ancestry. While Uruguay may have been relatively accepting of blacks, other South American nations took a little longer to integrate those of color into their sides.

“During the week, he traipsed around the streets of the capital, making a meager living as a street vendor, but came into his own on the pitch on Sundays. By Mondays, however he was so exhausted that he could not work. He proposed that the club pay him the two pesos that he might have earned on the Monday so that he could play on Sunday. Otherwise he threatened to quit.” – Golazo!

During the turn of the century, soccer players weren’t bringing home big money or gaining national recognition. During the early 20th century, professionalism was still a few decades away. Soccer players didn’t earn the majority of their money through sports. It wasn’t until after spectators were being charged by clubs that players began demanding money for their service. The player that the quote is referring to is a man named Zanessi that ran the pitch for Dublin Montevideo. As is to be expected, the quality of play and player wages simultaneously increased. Despite being trounced by visiting European clubs in the early 20th century, the gradual adoption of professionalism Latin American soccer began catching up to the play of their founding fathers across the pond.

Giuseppe Rossi – Italy

Rossi’s story actually parallels Jozy Altidore’s in many ways. Both are New Jersey natives that transferred to Villarreal as young starlets for around the same transfer fee. The stories diverge during their time at Villarreal together when Altidore appeared nine times netting one goal while Rossi stayed at the club for six years, appearing 136 times and scoring 54 goals. It’s not a stretch to say that had Rossi featured for the USMNT, he would’ve been the most successful outfield American player to play in Europe.

Neven Subotić – Serbia

Despite his emphatic comments, it’d be wrong to paint Neven Subotić as the bad guy. The 6’4” defender only decided to switch allegiances after US U-20 coach Thomas Rongen allegedly told him that he would never play for the U-20 USMNT. Naturally after being rejected by his adopted country, Neven’s abilities were solicited by his birth nation, Serbia. The former Utah and Florida resident has spent his entire professional career in Europe, winning the Bundesliga title twice and finishing runner up in the Champions League with Dortmund.

Andy Najar – Honduras

As just a teenager, Najar was garnering attention from Europe’s top clubs. After a few quality seasons with D.C. United, Najar packed his bags and set sail for Anderlecht in Belgium. Despite a quiet past couple seasons, Najar is still only 25 and has ample time to turn his career around.

Brede Hangeland – Norway

It’s fair to say that if Brede had been called up to the US squad, he would’ve felt out of place. When asked about his spell in the US, he said, “We were there for a short period in 1980/81 which is when I was born and then we went back home, so obviously I don’t remember too much about my time there.” The 6’6” central defender notched 217 appearances for Fulham and tallied 91 caps for Norway before retiring in 2014.

Vedad Ibišević – Bosnia & Herzegovina

Instead of starring on the US’ frontline, he played backup to Džeko for Bosnia & Herzegovina scoring 28 goals in 83 caps. At the club level, Vedad was most prolific at Hoffenheim scoring 48 goals in 123 games. Such a rate earned him a move to VfB Stuttgart in 2012. The 33-year-old now finds himself employed by Hertha Berlin in the German Bundesliga.

Jonathan Gonzalez – México

Even though Chief Scout for the USMNT Thomas Rongen – the same coach that allegedly told Subotić he’d never play for the U-20 side- reportedly visited his house three times in 2018 in attempts to persuade him to play for the red, white, and blue, Gonzalez still chose his father’s native country.

We don’t know if the midfielder will live up to the hype, but what’s certain is that the US would rather have him sitting on its bench than competing against them on the road to the 2022 World Cup.

After a historically poor World Cup qualifying campaign the US Men’s National Team is going through a bit of an identity crisis. Despite winning three consecutive hexes prior to 2018, amassing 20+ points in each campaign, the in-flux squad could only manage 12 points this go-around.

Ask a pundit what went wrong and they’ll tell you that Klinsmann lost control of the locker room, the tactics were desultory, or that bad luck simply took center stage. The aforementioned are all valid reasons, however, the demise of the USMNT has much more far-reaching roots than an Omar Gonzalez own goal or a locker room squabble.

We’re good at every other sport, so why not soccer?

Well that’s the thing; we’re actually not. On paper, the US shouldn’t just be coasting through CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers but running out of trophy space on its mantelpiece.

When’s the last time you heard about American athletes excelling in rugby or table tennis? What about cricket, badminton, cycling or field hockey? We may view ourselves as utterly dominant in all areas of sport, but we’re not; and there’s a legitimate reason why.

It comes down to the numbers. Not the number of people we have in our country, if this were the logic China would dominate every sport, but the number of people playing soccer. In the US, three sports dominate the sporting arena: football, basketball, and baseball. And even though love for the beautiful game has been gradually increasing, this doesn’t necessarily mean that more kids are choosing to play soccer instead of other sports.

Perhaps soccer in the US isn’t just a game for 1st and 2nd generation Americans but it’s still far from taking a sizeable bite from basketball and football’s talent pools. The numbers vary a little but most agree that as of 2015, about 24 million Americans played soccer. A Gallup poll from 2017 actually found that soccer is the third-most played sport across the US behind basketball and football. While 24 million may sound well and good, the number’s a bit deceiving.

Between the US Youth Soccer Association, American Youth Soccer Organization, USL youth leagues, DI soccer, and Americans soccer players abroad there are a little less than 4 million potential soccer starlets.

The numbers matter

Yet this article pertains to why the US Men’s National Team will never be considered a soccer superpower. We can go ahead and subtract about 1.7 million female soccer players from that number consequently leaving us with a soccer-specific athletic pool of 2.3 million male athletes under the age of 22. Looking to the future that gives us a total of just over 2 million soccer players that we’re relying on to bring home the FIFA World Cup.

Just a few keepy uppies south of the US and you’ll find Brazil with a tick over 13 million registered soccer players according to FIFA. The gender disparity is a bit more pronounced in Brazil where women were actually banned from playing soccer from 1941 to 1979. This translates to approximately 11 million registered male youth soccer players and legions of other youth players not on the books that are playing favela footy. Judging from the numbers alone the Brazilians are more than 6x as likely to be producing the next Pele, Maradona, or Cruyff.

Accurate numbers are tough to come by, but it’s safe to say that the US has less soccer players than a number of top-tier soccer nations that have substantially smaller overall populations such as Germany, Brazil and France. Yet there are still minnows like Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Holland, and Chile that have fewer players than the US but are significantly more adept with a ball at their feet.

If we have as many youth soccer players as Italy, why are we not nearly as good?

For one, the pitch isn’t the only place that American youth soccer players spend their free time. 60% of males between the ages of 5-19 play more than one sport. You can be sure that kids in Holland, Brazil, and even Iceland are monogamous when it comes to their sporting relationships.

Secondly, we have a U.S. Soccer Development Academy that was only founded in 2007. This nascent academy is a microcosm of the development of youth soccer in the US. While countries like Spain can boast thousands of experienced coaches with UEFA A licenses, the US has but a few hundred. Youth soccer is kept stagnant by inept coaches and a dearth of trained eyes scouting for precocious talent. And if you’re wondering why more talented youth players don’t go to Europe to train, consider how difficult it is to get a youth work permit. Pulisic was only able to leave for Borussia Dortmund at such an early age because he has Croatian citizenship thus enabling him to work throughout the EU.

If viewed with a perfunctory glance, the US and top 25 FIFA-ranked countries have a comparable amount of youth soccer players. Yet examined through a more statistical lens and we see that there’s a disparity in the number of serious, dedicated soccer players in the US as compared to a myriad of other nations.

Many a pundit is still pondering why the USMNT didn’t qualify for the 2018 World Cup. Had a commercial not cut Taylor Twellman off he might still be on a tangent. The truth of that dismal World Cup qualifying campaign is that Americans just don’t care about soccer. While the pool of soccer talent is expanding, who knows when it will be before Americans become a serious contender on the world stage.

Soccer is the most popular youth sport in America but it’s still playing catchup as a professional sport, although thanks to these betting bonuses you can now bet on MLS or any other soccer league easily. But what specifically stops soccer from catching on? And will things change in the long run?

Editor’s Note: Spencer Abel examines the aesthetic of soccer support in today’s stadiums and reflects on the broader interest for soccer in America. 

The aesthetic of soccer has a persuasive power that’s able to knock the reason out of a spectator. In American soccer, that aesthetic is blunt.

Catching a full 90 minutes of soccer in the United States often leads to confusion and a possible existential crisis. Despite MLS having been in operation for 24 years, many stadiums function as part-time homes for soccer teams. NYCFC plays at Yankee Stadium, the New England Revolution plays in the shadow of the Patriots, and Seattle Sounders still need to ask permission to their city’s American football franchise for the use of their stadium.

Even the clubs that have soccer-specific arenas like Montreal need to occasionally use other stadiums when capacity threatens to exceed their zealously humble abodes.

If you do find yourself in one of MLS’ many soccer-specific stadiums plagued by dwarfism, you’ll note that the atmosphere is more akin to a Sunday picnic than a professional sporting event. Spectators are comprised of families and youth soccer teams. Hot dogs and nachos are consumed in great quantity and conversations regarding non-soccer related topics abound as attendees work out their gluteal muscles for 90 minutes plus stoppage time.

Head to the other end of the Americas and like water, soccer spins in the opposite direction.

In Argentina, church and stadium propriety are nearly synonymous, with a few expletive exceptions. On a recent pilgrimage to Estadio Monumental, home of River Plate, I saw what it was to act in a holy manner among 65,000 of River’s closest devotees.

Fans sacrificed their bodies by standing for the entirety of the match. When they weren’t singing and jumping in unison, they would worship in silence. Between the crowded masses of delirium, there was no space for talk of happenings outside the pitch. When silence nor songs of glory were apt, the pews of Estadio Monumental would rain down spells on the opposing players in the form of derogatory language usually about their mothers.

Yet the most awe-inspiring moment wasn’t courtesy of the width of River Plate’s songbook or our proximity to the moon. It was the barbed wire. In the US, such wire is used to deter thieves. Yet in the home of River Plate, it’s called into use because Los Millonarios can’t seem to contain their love.

Uninhibited passion has a way of persuading believers to climb fences.

Every country south of the US has bathed themselves in the sweat and tears of utter fandom for decades. Supporting a soccer club is a form of monogamy that gets divorced less often than even the most compatible of marriages. Perhaps there is something in the water that makes our fellow Americans to the south rabid with fanaticism.

We ask ourselves why the US squad didn’t qualify for the World Cup. The coaches are blamed, players lampooned, and federation mocked. But for me, I blame the barbed wire; or lack thereof.