In the US soccer is a sport for the suburban rich, but it's a sport for the poor in all other countries.

Not all soccer clubs are like this.

My sons play at the DA level for our club and all costs are covered by the club. We only pay for my wife and I to travel to tournaments. If you are good enough cost is not a barrier.

The club my sons used to play with didn’t start teaching tactics until U14. The emphasis early on was touches, passing, small-sided games, footwork, etc. never practiced set pieces. For that club, there were scholarships for anyone needing financial aid. Again, money was not a barrier.

Also, with that club, in the winter they had futsal where kids would just go for an hour and a half and play on team and rotate around playing 10 minute games. No voach, no ref, no instruction. Just play.

Still a club so no inclusive of any kid who wants to walk down the street to play.

Greedy clubs are the answer to the original question, you see the same in baseball with "travel ball" and regional sports like volleyball and lacrosse. Very few "poor" or minority kids in those sports. Track/ Cross Country are two of the remaining merit based sports left.

Re: #3 It does not have to be that way, but for some reason it has because people realized they could make a lot of money off well-to-do parents who think that soccer will get their kid into a prestigious college or a grant-in-aid. Odds are long though, but club coaches convince parents even the back up player will get $$$$ if they play year round and travel to "showcases".

Not teaching tactics until 14....... bwahahahaha. What a joke.

The reason rich white people play soccer is because the best athletes play football and basketball. If you're a rich white teen living in the suburbs and mommy and daddy tell you that you're the best, you're not going to play football or basketball because you won't get a scholarship and you'll be benched the whole time. Ergo, you play a second tier sport so your ego stays at full capacity.

Luv2Run wrote:

Not PC answer wrote:

Not the PC answer, blacks are genetically better athletes. See Jimmy the Greek comments. And they culturally in the US prefer football and basketball as opposed to white sports that white people do.

Using Jimmy the Greek as your source? That is so damn funny!

What is the truth then? It seems like blacks are superior athletes based on empirical evidence. They simply work harder?

Answering my own question but...

I think there are a few factors and all have been hit on at one point or another.

1. soccer doesn't require you to be of freakish size to be successful like fball or basketball or even baseball.

2. white suburban kids can't athletically compete with black athletes in fball/bball, so they turn to soccer as an alternative.

3. because most schools didn't even have soccer until the past 15-20 years it developed as a club sport, meaning it costs money, not a sport where you show up after school and get all the equipment, coaching, etc.

4. it's not as violent as fball, that's appealing to kids who's parents care about their long term well being, not trying for a short term tiny % chance of being a rich pro.

5. making the sport a pay to play keeps out the riff raff, so it shrinks the competition.

Whatistherightanswer wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

Using Jimmy the Greek as your source? That is so damn funny!

What is the truth then? It seems like blacks are superior athletes based on empirical evidence. They simply work harder?

Huh? Since when? If I do recall the world's greatest athlete of all time is Kevin Mayer. I did not realize he was black.

NotPC wrote:

Why is soccer considered a sport for the rich, but football and basketball are for poor people in the USA? The reason soccer is popular in other areas is that all you need is a patch of grass and a ball.

Most suburbanites are not rich. Soccer does not just draw from the rich among suburbanites.

NotPC wrote:

Why is soccer considered a sport for the rich, but football and basketball are for poor people in the USA? The reason soccer is popular in other areas is that all you need is a patch of grass and a ball.

Where I live in California, soccer is the only sport all the Mexicans play, and there are tons of them, and very poor. Soccer is their life and the only thing they do for an activity.

Not PC answer wrote:

Not the PC answer, blacks are genetically better athletes. See Jimmy the Greek comments. And they culturally in the US prefer football and basketball as opposed to white sports that white people do.

Oh? Which genes express the superiority?

Yours is not only not a PC answer, it is not even a good answer.

wernerTee wrote:

NotPC wrote:

Why is soccer considered a sport for the rich, but football and basketball are for poor people in the USA? The reason soccer is popular in other areas is that all you need is a patch of grass and a ball.

Where I live in California, soccer is the only sport all the Mexicans play, and there are tons of them, and very poor. Soccer is their life and the only thing they do for an activity.

So when you hear someone say Soccer Mom your first thought is of an Mx immigrant or is it some white wife driving a minivan?

NotPC wrote:

2. white suburban kids can't athletically compete with black athletes in fball/bball, so they turn to soccer as an alternative.

.

This game me a chuckle. So in America people think football/basketball draw the best athletes? In the rest of the world it would be the opposite.

US soccer wrote:

NotPC wrote:

2. white suburban kids can't athletically compete with black athletes in fball/bball, so they turn to soccer as an alternative.

.

This game me a chuckle. So in America people think football/basketball draw the best athletes? In the rest of the world it would be the opposite.

Not sure what the guy was going on about black athletes in football either. Lot of awesome white athletes there. So of my favorite athletes to watch in the NFL were JJ Watt and Gronk. No black can compare to that. Real football players.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

qaoaoqa wrote:

-Its televised enough. For some reason not promoted well here. Intentionally or non-intentionally. Well, if they want to become a $500 million world superstars then those little poor kids better start expanding their horizons.

When is the last time you saw a non-World Cup soccer match on primetime on a major network? Saturday showings of Chelsea vs. Man U at 10a on NBC Sports doesn't really count.

If/when NBC/CBS/Fox/ABC start showing soccer in prime time on Fri to Sun nights, then we can talk about it be televised enough. Until then, it doesn't even compare to MLB, NBA, or NFL.

World Cup matches aren't primetime either because they want to show them live. Guess what? That means airing at 9 or 10 am because the game is being played over in Europe.

/,m/. wrote:

Not PC answer wrote:

Not the PC answer, blacks are genetically better athletes. See Jimmy the Greek comments. And they culturally in the US prefer football and basketball as opposed to white sports that white people do.

Oh? Which genes express the superiority?

Yours is not only not a PC answer, it is not even a good answer.

Doesn't take a genius. There hasn't been a white person the Olympic 100m final since 1980. NFL and NBA is over 80% black. I don't know the exact genes, but it is clear blacks are the superior athletes in explosive sports.

Michael Johnson, quote:

"All my life ... I believed I became an athlete through my own effort and determination, but it's impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn't left an imprint through the generations. Difficult as it was to hear, slavery has benefited descendants like me ... I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us. Over the last few years, athletes of Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American descent have dominated athletics finals. It's a fact that hasn't been discussed openly before. It's a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn't we discuss it?"

So the above is basically all a lie. NFL more than 80% black? Try 65%. Lol, what a tool.

Soccer is the most explosive sport there is and blacks pale in comparison to whites.

Blacks haven't won the ultimate explosive event - the high jump - in years. What do I get out of that? Yup. Blacks can't jump. Really though, if you put two brain cells together you'd realize that why whites haven't been in a 100m Olympic final is because there was a loss of interest, a large migration to other sports (which are more interesting), and eventually because they saw that since it attracted a lot of blacks that that was something they didn't want to be associated with. Simple.

ooper wrote:

Ummm no wrote:

Not all soccer clubs are like this.

My sons play at the DA level for our club and all costs are covered by the club. We only pay for my wife and I to travel to tournaments. If you are good enough cost is not a barrier.

The club my sons used to play with didn’t start teaching tactics until U14. The emphasis early on was touches, passing, small-sided games, footwork, etc. never practiced set pieces. For that club, there were scholarships for anyone needing financial aid. Again, money was not a barrier.

Also, with that club, in the winter they had futsal where kids would just go for an hour and a half and play on team and rotate around playing 10 minute games. No voach, no ref, no instruction. Just play.

Not teaching tactics until 14....... bwahahahaha. What a joke.

Clearly, you know what you’re talking about since you think U14 means 14 year olds and not 12 and 13 year olds.

It’s a good training method. South Americans do the same. Small side and focus on touches and beating your man at early ages.

SoccerDad wrote:

Kids can play small sided soccer games just as easily as a small sided pick-up basketball game, or a game of over the line, can be made.

Also they get way more touches with just a few kids. Most practices are run small sided. My kid and his friends play soccer at lunch and in any free playground time at school and sometimes after. He has been doing it since Kinder. Another school in our area doesn't allow it though.

In NYC it's hard. For K-12 we had paved asphalt/blacktop(?) playgrounds with no grass or dirt. Good for basketball, not great for soccer. There were hoops and lines for basketball courts but not for soccer. I think it was also generally discouraged, in practice it was just a bit too easy for kids to fall and get bloodied up or for the ball to go flying and annoy people.