Asking why the U.S. isn’t better at soccer is a really dumb question – Sporting News

It happens pretty much every time the United States men’s national team departs from another major international soccer tournament. It could be the World Cup or the Confederations Cup or, this time, the Copa America Centenario.

MORE: Team USA in Copa America Centenario photos

Whether the U.S. plays well and loses (as it did against Belgium in the 2014 World Cup) or plays miserably and is embarrassed (for instance, Tuesday night against Argentina in the Copa semifinal), the debates begin about why this country is not better at soccer.

The only thing that could make that question dumber is if someone were to ask, “Could you talk about why the United States is not better at soccer?”

It’s the kind of question that might merit one’s microphone being thrown into a lake.

A better question would be: Now that the United States somehow managed to get this good in such a short amount of time, what’s the best path for more improvement?

In 1994, when the U.S. was selected as the World Cup’s host nation and was automatically entered into the 24-team field, the players who represented the national team mostly stayed together and played friendlies in advance of the tournament because there was no major league in the U.S. and few had outside obligations. Teams from other nations were loaded with full-time professionals. Essentially, every major world soccer power has a 100-year head start on the Americans.

MORE: Three things learned from Argentina’s dismantling of USMNT

Now, Major League Soccer just turned 20, national team members such as Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey are paid millions to play there, and the majority of the players who formed the regular lineup for Copa America were regulars in top European Leagues.

It’s a totally different program now. Since 2000, the United States has advanced from the World Cup group stages three times in four tries, won a World Cup group in 2010 and finished first in World Cup qualifying three times. The U.S. also won four of the past eight CONCACAF Gold Cup tournaments, splitting evenly with rival Mexico, and finished second at the 2009 Confederations Cup.

Does all this mean the 4-0 loss to Argentina was not horrendous? No, the Americans stunk beginning to end.

Does it mean soccer development in this country is ideal? No, but it is so much better than it was at the start.

Does it mean Jurgen Klinsmann is the most ideal person to serve as both national team coach and technical director of the U.S. program? He may not be the perfect fit for either, but it’s also risky to change coaches in the middle of a World Cup qualifying cycle.

MORE: Ranking American owners in English soccer

After the Argentina loss, Klinsmann talked about his team respecting the opposition too much, needing to step on a few more toes — which he seemed to mean literally. He suggested playing without three regular starters against the world’s No. 1 team and its preeminent player, Lionel Messi, was a mental barrier for the Americans. 

“Hopefully we can play these teams every year,” Klinsmann said. “When you play them on a regular basis, that respect gets smaller than smaller. The more often we can play this caliber of teams, the more we’re going to learn. I think the players will be more and more confident to take them on. This is just a process here.”

Even with all the U.S. has accomplished in men’s soccer, it is much closer to the beginning of that process than it is to the end.

There are many debates about whether the so-called “pay-to-play” model in the U.S. cripples development, and whether smaller players who exhibit promising skills are overlooked in favor of bigger, more athletic-looking young men, and whether better athletes are choosing other sports. All of it is true, and none of it is true.

In such a vast country, with so many other prominent sports with longer histories, there are going to be athletes who choose other sports, situations where promising talents aren’t nurtured and, though this is easily addressed, athletes dissuaded from playing a game that appears to be more expensive than some others.

It also is true, however, that the MLS decision to incentivize the development of “home-grown” players — essentially, if a Jordan Morris comes through your development academy, you get first shot at signing him to play in the league — has improved the soccer training for hundreds and eventually thousands of young players. It’s what comes from having an actual professional league in the country.

MORE: U.S. team impressing Jurgen Klinsmann, or failing to

The first MLS season was in 1996. It’s not the best professional soccer league in the world, but it has gotten progressively better. The U.S. is not among the best national teams, but it has gotten progressively better.

When Copa America began, there would not have been many fans, analysts, players or coaches who would have looked at victories over Ecuador, Paraguay and Costa Rica by a combined score of 7-1 as the sort of performance that needed to be explained or excused.

It would be ludicrous to suggest there is no room for improvement within the national team program, nor any method for achieving that progress, but the first step toward that goal is to understand who you are at the moment.