The last Gold Cup final was attended by something like 94,000 people, so that's something I guess, going in the right direction at least.

What needs to happen is that for this popularity at international level, to convert into people going to see their "local" team play, be it in MLS, or the NASL, as that will further cement soccer into people's mind.

Following the national team is all well and good, but they don't play that often, and if more clubs could follow say Seattle's attendences, then both leagues would continue to grow, the calibre of players that they would be able to attract would increase, and that would help to make the home grown players better overall.

It is a long road, but the difference in the standard from say a decade ago, is very noticeable, and with the new expansion teams like NYFC, and Miami, along with the well known brand of the Cosmos, then brand recognition will get better and better, which can only help the league to get a more solid foothold into people's mind.

^^ didn't I hear the other night that the USA team was the most hardworking international team in terms of matches played over the last year or so?

Why all of a sudden is the USA getting to the second round a big deal?

New York Red Bulls have been very proactive through the World Cup on Social Media.
The responses to the posts, suggest healthy interest.
I feel MLS will become more akin to The Championship in England. Already its average gate is higher than The Championship and Bundesliga 2, and higher overall than Bundesliga 2

It is the 9th best attended league in the World, how much bigger it has to be before we in the UK stop patronising the league (IMO I feel that we are) I do not know.

Although it has higher average attandence than English league 2, the NASL maybe needs a boost within its markets. Three new teams are joining the NASL, one stadium announced Virginia Calvary stadium with a 5,500 capacity. But it has to be noted that it will be in the Washington DC Metro area, so in effect Washington will have two pro Soccer teams.

But, I hope that any expansion does not explode like a balloon.

Because football is a tough nut to crack in the US, with USA getting into the second round the interest will be greater than if they had a WC similar to England. It would be great if football manages to grown further in the US and this WC will hopefully push it on it's way.

Howard and Dempsey talk to Obama

http://youtu.be/jYeD2nrLZRU

I'm starting to wonder if Clint Dempsey is all there, his face during national anthems and in this video

The point is that they have got to this stage before, and further too. I don't really understand what they are supposed to have achieved that other previous sides have failed to do.

Higher tv ratings probably.

It's not so much that previous sides have failed where this one has succeeded, I think it's more to do with the circumstances around the situations.

This time round the USA was in a group with Germany, Portugal, and Ghana - prior to the tournament, how many people would have put the USA in the top two of that group? If memory serves me correctly, in 2010 the USA was in a group with England, Algeria, and Slovenia - on paper a much easier group to get out of.

The 2014 version of the "USMNT" were far more up against it, and the manner in which they played against Ghana, Portugal and Belgium was the sort that gets fans behind them. It wasn't simply a case of getting out of the group and then bowing out with little more than a whimper.

I think that there needs to be some sort of clarification about the NASL, as it still sees itself as a sort of rival league to MLS, with different rules/regulations (wage limits etc), if perhaps they could be somehow persuaded to become say like MLS 2, or a feeder league, where you could get promoted to the MLS, and MLS clubs could get relegated to the NASL, then that might be easier to comprehend for the neutrals, or people just getting into the sport.

It is good to see the league growing, and the popularity in terms of TV ratings and attendences getting better and better, hopefully this will continue with the new expansion teams (Orlando, Miami, and NYCFC).
I do wonder what the limit will be in terms of teams, as if you look at where the clubs are, there are still large parts of the country, that don't have either an NASL or MLS club, but to try and incorporate the whole country will be a huge ask, as until you get multiple leagues, or a pyramid structure, then trying to fit as many as possible into only a few leagues, just isn't really feasible.

I hope that the leagues continue to grow, and eventually they compete for the top stars in their prime, as that will mean that the sport will truly have cemented itself in the country.

They weren't expected to get out of their group for starters. Everyone assumed Germany and Portugal would be shoe ins for the second round.

That is completely irrelevant to the point. It is still the second round regardless, just as Germany getting to the final in 2002 should not be judged against the backdrop of beating noone of major repute along the way.

The American interest would lie with how far they get and that should not give rise to any assessment of the significance of who they were up against. I am not convinced they were exactly minnows and they had even beaten what was in my opinion a better Portugal side in 2002 en route to their quarter final appearance.

How far a team gets is a matter of fact, the strength of who you beat on the way is (i) out of your control and (ii) a matter of opinion..

I disagree. Ghana were fancied by many to do well. I don't recall anyone regarding Portgual as shoe ins even if its reasonable to have regarded them as second favourites.

I don't really buy the idea that they got out of a group of death. Portugal turned out to be a very poor team due in part to Ronaldo being unfit and their best defender being sent off in the first match. Once they lost 4-0 in the first match they seemed to basically give up. Meanwhile the US got an undeserved victory over Ghana and played a Germany team happy to settle for a narrow win meaning the US squeaked through on goal difference.

When Harris compared responses to their question "If you had to choose, which ONE of these sports would you say is your favorite?" they found those who said soccer had declined from 3% in 1985 to 2% in 2012. Some corresponding figures in 2012

Pro football 34
Baseball 16
College football 11
Auto racing 8
Men's pro basketball 7
Hockey 5
Men's Soccer 2
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/New...6/Default.aspx

If sport for you is only about statistics and not about context then there's not a great deal of point attempting to explain the nuances involved between the different instances mentioned previously.


The bit in bold there is not strictly speaking true - the FIFA rankings are not based on opinion, they is a formula applied equally to each nations results. It's maths that generates a country's ranking (which in turn dictates the seeding for the World Cup group draws) - not opinion.

If the World Rankings are a point of fact then they confirm that the USA are three places worse off than the period between 2002 and 2004.

Which by your logic should make any assertion that they have made progress all the more mystifying.

I haven't read the thread, so apologies if I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but if people are suggesting USA have NOT made progress this time round, I must say these people know nothing about football. Never have I seen such a good US football team who played not only with incredible passion but also had good skills and looked like a very well organised team.

And who are ranked lower than their equivalents from 10 years ago.

As shadout regards these rankings as a matter of fact, perhaps you should debate the point with him.

Excellent points.

And were then basically battered by Belgium who managed 17 shots on target and 19 corners. They were flattered beyond belief by a 2-1 scoreline and got back into the game thanks to a fairly lucky goal anyway, which prompted a flurry that made it seem much closer than was realistically the case.

The difference would be of course that the level of interest in the national team is much higher now. They were a very good team back in 2002, beat Portugal in the group stages of the WC and got through to the quarter final.

I am not talking about the level of interest in the team. I am saying that this team has achieved nothing particularly out of this world when compared with its predecessors and the facts confirm this.

They didn't even beat Portugal in 2014 done so in 2002.

Yes, but the thread is about US reaction to success of the team so far.

I think one reason they captured people's imagination is that showed real battling abilities. They came from behind against Ghana and Portugal and very nearly staged an extraordinary comeback against Belgium in the last 15 minutes of extra time.

I agree that the thread is about the reaction, you are absolutely right, and perhaps the merits of what they have achieved may be better discussed elsewhere.

It doesnt alter my assertion that the positive thoughts on the team are a complete overreaction in the context of what they have done. Any interest appears to be a spin off from the success of MLS and should not result in their current side being unfairly glorified.