Big Business FC, Pay to Play

In 2004, I bet a friend $100 that the U.S. men's national team would never win the World Cup in our lifetimes. If my friend won he would get the cash, and if I won...well, I'd be dead.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom suggested that I had made a safe bet, but the arguments against soccer's potential popularity in the U.S. are beginning to sound less persuasive. In their book Soccernomics, sports economist Stefan Szymanski and soccer writer Simon Kuper argue that American soccer dominance is inevitable given our population and per-capita income. In light of this data, I am starting to doubt that I will be pushing up daisies before our boys bring home the gold statue. 

We have often been athletic trend-setters thanks to our vast resources and large talent pool, but is world soccer dominance really in our future? The U.S. is at the forefront of sports science and sports medicine research--European clubs send their players to our trainers and doctors. In true American fashion, foreign coaching talent is being recruited to drive growth and we now have more youngsters playing Soccer than any other sport in the United States; in fact, we have one of the highest levels of youth soccer participation in the world.

In the professional sphere, MLS is growing in popularity and after years of austerity looks stable enough to surpass the 16-year benchmark set by its predecessor the NASL. The "designated player" rule, the building of soccer-specific stadiums and expansion teams have all signaled that MLS is planning for aggressive growth. Yet while soccer has begun to stake its claim within the American sports culture, our men's national team still does not stack up. There is something standing in the way of talent development in the U.S. and that something is Big Business FC. 

Big Business FC is your local soccer club; it has a name that pays homage to the great clubs of the world, something like "Real Rancho Cucamonga." The club has a board of directors, hundreds of eager parents willing to pay top-dollar for their kids to play forward--even if they're overweight and can't run--and it's ruining youth development in the United States. Often, it is not so much the club that is at odds with player development as the parents who pay for their kids to play for the club. 

Soccer clubs started with a decent enough premise: an environment in which gifted youth could develop their talent throughout the year. Somewhere along the way the evil seeds of money, greed and politics supplanted this premise. At youth clubs playing time is not necessarily awarded on the merit of a child's ability (say positional awareness, technique or vision) but on how much their parents have shelled out for them to be there. Club soccer today is not as much a meritocracy as it is an aristocracy. Sadly, this corrosive system has contributed to the stagnation of our national team by feeding our youth development program for years. 

Practicing is not the main goal for many clubs, winning is, thus player development goes largely ignored. A club team can play more games in a weekend tournament than it has practice sessions in a whole week. There are clubs that hire respected coaches who understand the importance of training over winning at the youth level, but parents want to see immediate results for their money. How then, can the focus of a club be development when coaches and trainers have to operate in such a politically-charged environment? 

The authors of Soccernomics state that in addition to population and per-capita income there is a third factor that determines a country's soccer potential: soccer knowledge. Soccer knowledge is gained by studying European training methods and a pass-centric playing style. The U.S. has already begun to adopt many of these methods and is trying to implement European tactics, but it has largely ignored the building-block of the European game: academies.

U.S. soccer has been making great strides over the last decade. USSF president Sunil Gulati and his underlings realize that the youth system has to change; entrusting local clubs to feed our Olympic Development Program is not enough. The revamped U.S. Development Academy, in following the European model, depends on MLS clubs to develop talent through their academies, thereby moving youth soccer development in the right direction. 

I used to think that MLS was an afterthought, that if the U.S. was ever going to produce world-class players they would have to go abroad at an early age. However, if we are to produce a team of world-beaters that can compete with Brazil, Spain, Ghana et al., we cannot entrust the development of our players to other countries, it simply isn't feasible. We need stronger MLS academies to begin nurturing players in a training-intensive setting that is paid for by the team. It would be great to see an extensive academy system spread across MLS because I want to lose that bet I made seven years ago.

Swiss Surprise: A Strange Night in Zurich

...well, perhaps not so much strange as it was telling. All of the awards were handed out as most pundits had predicted; from coach of the year, which went to the undeniably deserving Jose Mourinho, to women's player of the year (Brazil's Marta). The FIFA World XI was, as anticipated, a reflection of Spain and Inter Milan's successes over the last year:

Iker Casillas (Spain/R. Madrid), Maicon (Brazil/Inter), Lucio (Brazil/Inter), Gerard Pique (Spain/Barca), Carles Puyol (Spain/Barca), Andrés Iniesta (Spain/Barca), Xavi (Spain/Barca), Wesley Sneijder (Netherlands/Inter), Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal/R. Madrid), David Villa (Spain/Barca), Lionel Messi (Argentina/Barca).

There was only one surprise and it took until the end of the gala to be unveiled. The most eagerly anticipated award, the men's Ballon d'Or, which so many were so sure would go to either Xavi or Iniesta, went instead to the night's dark horse: Lionel Messi.

Any other year and the mention of Messi as a dark horse would have been met with laughter and ridicule. However, as the diminuitive Argentinean lumbered slowly up the steps and slouched onto the podium to humbly accept the award, even he could not hide his astonishment

"The truth is that I didn't expect to win it [the Ballon d'Or] today," said Messi.

Both Messi's demeanor and his impromptu speech hinted that he was genuinely shocked to have won. As he wrapped up, Europe's top scorer in 2010 (60 goals in all competitions) said that he would like to share the award with his fellow Barcelonistas and Argentineans and left the podium with a look of bewilderment on his face.  

Throughout La Pulga's acceptance speech his Barcelona teammates put on their best smiles, but were visibly crest-fallen as they sat in the auditorium. It seemed particularly difficult for Xavi to hide his disappointment as Messi was announced the winner, and rightfully so.

If Iniesta appeared to be the more magnanimous in defeat of the two runners-up it was because he was probably already thinking that he would come in second to Xavi. Instead, Iniesta came in as runner-up to Messi while Xavi was left scratching his head in third place for a second consecutive year.

What took place was a split vote. With the voters torn between which of the two Spaniards should take home the prize, Messi was able to edge it by roughly six percent of the vote.

The numbers are important, but the more critical element is that Messi is widely considered to be the best player of his generation. This reputation, in addition to the goals he scored in 2010 (many of which were scored as a result of Xavi's vision), are what won Messi the most coveted individual award in soccer.

The papers in Spain, particularly AS and Marca, were seeing red this morning (consternation sells). Conspiracy theories ran abound and continue to do so. Guatemala's captain is crying foul that his vote for Xavi was miscounted for Xabi Alonso. In any event, one vote does not a difference make; Sepp Blatter cannot be blamed for this one--the things he can be blamed for are topics for another post.

The real elephant in the auditorium at this year's gala was that goals and image win individual accolades not goalkeeping, defending or play making. Soccer's greatest prize has seldom been bestowed upon players plying their trades in less glamorous positions--when it has, voters have had no other option. Fabio Cannavaro won in 2006 because he was instrumental in Italy's unlikely run to the final.

This also marked the first time that FIFA's top prize has gone to someone other than a world cup winner during a world cup year, which is a testament to the sheer volume of goals that Messi scored in 2010.

The Ballon d'Or was Spain's to lose and everybody knew it. Speaking after the gala, Iker Casillas expressed the fallen hopes of a nation and of many true connoisseurs of the game.

"It's a great disappointment to me as a fan of the game," said the Real Madrid and Spain shot-stopper, who as Spain's captain was allowed a vote.

Casillas clearly had  not voted for Leo Messi "...I would have liked it if a Spaniard had won," said Casillas.

The Real Madrid captain went on the say that Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the two best players in the world on current form, but that Xavi and Iniesta were a cut above the rest in 2010.

Even 2008 winner Cristiano Ronaldo voiced his displeasure at the disproportionate attention paid to goal-scorers. The Real Madrid hit man said that he would be happy if one day a goalkeeper like Real Madrid teammate Casillas won the award.

No one disputes Lionel Messi's greatness. Watching a highlight reel of Lionel's mesmerizing runs is awe-inspiring. The Barcelona ace's ability to dribble at pace, the ball glued to his feet as he beats opponent's tackles by the most precise of margins, is simply amazing. In fact, it is Messi's very greatness over the last few years that won him the Ballon d'Or in a year in which it should have gone to someone else.