Countries that should be better at football

[Cloudface]

Exactly. It’s only been the best league for about 20 years. And England have been a lot better over the past 8 years.

English teams won the European Cup 7 out of 8 times between 1977-1984. Our underperformance internationally transcends recent times.

It's difficult to know what makes a great international team but I don't think it's just the quality of the domestic leagues. Spain only recently made their mark in international football despite having a domineering league for multiple periods.

 

[Malkovich]

Erm, this is all tripe, really… have a look at the heritage of so many small, historical and even very big clubs in Argentina: half are “Italiano”, “Audace”, etc… the other half are “Deportivo” and similar Spanish heritage. Brazil’s on the other hand was half Spanish, half Portuguese and their colonies… British were the Caribbeans instead.

You are not correct. English brought football to those nations, in Brazil's case it was Charles Miller and the railroad workers. The first clubs were British.

 

[Zehner]

Exactly. It’s only been the best league for about 20 years. And England have been a lot better over the past 8 years.

La Liga was the best league over the last two decades. The EPL has been the best league for maybe 8 years or so.

 

[Bepi]

You are not correct. English brought football to those nations, in Brazil's case it was Charles Miller and the railroad workers. The first clubs were British.

I think we are just talking apples and oranges here: the elitist start (Miller in Brazil, really the British pretty much evrywhere since mid 19th century) vs the same sport for the masses, the big numbers and the effects on the talent pool.

 

[criticalanalysis]

India and China. 35% of the world’s population and a combined all time XI worse than Iceland (0,00005% of the world’s population.)

Regardless of culture, economics etc. it’s crazy how they’ve never produced a single good player and that’s only a mild exaggeration.

Is it even an exaggeration? Honestly can't think of a single Indian or Chinese player that isn't Dong Fangzhou, and him I only know because he was at United briefly.

Tyias Browning too. Chinese mother but moved from Everton to the Chinese league and then got called up to the national side.

There's Perry Ng, who's English born and plays for Cardiff and is eligible to play for Singapore. Different country but there's a Chinese connection there with that surname.

Wu Lei would be probably be one of the very few 'objectively' good Chinese born footballers. Played for Espanyol for 4 seasons.





Looking at the replies, I think he was bit of a fan favourite there. His Chinese League goal stats are insane, La Liga not so much. He has genuine raw pace/acceleration and scored some decent goals like against Barcalona. There were talks of him joining a PL team. In the grand scheme of things, not special by any means i.e average in European leagues, which I'd assume is basically legendary status for a China player

 

[do.ob]

I just mean there seems to be a concentration of sporting genetics in Balkan countries for some reason.

Similar to how Ashkenazi Jews excel at academics. There's a concentration of high IQ in their population.

Just anecdotally growing up, I knew some lads who were just naturally brilliant at every sport they tried and they trained the same as everyone else. Whatever those genes are, they're more concentrated in the Balkans. Obviously height is useful for basketball and tennis.

Also there's other factors at play like culture and coaching etc...

Historically they're at a crossroads of civilization so that might be a factor. If you look at movements of people over millennia, the Balkans would've been a crossroads of Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Phoenecians etc...Also lots of wars and conflicts killing the weak.

As opposed to Scandinavia or Ireland for example who would be more geographically isolated.

So you know a couple of guys who are good at sports and some teams/people from the Balkans are good at Basketball and Tennis and you take that and spin it into some claim about sport gene concentration?

And what if I told you that those Scandinavians with their "weak genes" are actually leading the table when it comes to Olympic medals per capita?
Summer Olympics: average medals per capita 1896-2020 | Statista

The USA are the joint third greatest soccer nation of all time, by world cup results.

Do you mean among countries that call the game "soccer"? Am I missing a joke?

 

[antohan]

There are many reasons more important than population. In Brazil and Argentina's case, they had a mini-colonization by the British in the turn of the 19th century, they created the first clubs, leagues. Football was far more popular in those countries than the northern hemisphere countries like Colombia, because of the British influence.

In simple terms, British popularized football in Brazil and Argentina, and then Argentina popularized football in Mexico, Peru, Colombia decades later. They have a founding father effect in a lot of those countries (not 100% sure about Mexico). In Brazil's case, another curious aspect, it was probably the only established footballing nation that had a sizeable amounts of black athletes competing in world stage. Up untill late 90s and 2000s where we started seeing European teams fielding 3, 4, 5 black players. Of course there were the African nations but they never were organized enough domestically.

You are absolutely right, except that you are overlooking Uruguay's pioneering role.

We were the first to field black players and win tournaments doing so. In the first Copa América in 1916, Chile complained we had fielded "two Africans". Brazil wouldn't do it for about 15 years (bar mixed race cases like Friedenreich, and even he had long spells banned from the NT).

We were the first to go to Europe to participate (and win) in the Olympics Football Tournament.

Since we had gone and become world champions in 1924, 1928 and 1930 our main clubs followed that up by going on football tours for several months in 1925, 1927, 1929 and 1931 to promote football across the continent (Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Mexico being the most avid hosts).

A fair share of the funding for all that came from the government Itself, which regarded the sport as a way to put the country on the map and foster better international relations.

As you and others have said, that early vision and investment still pays off to this day.

 

[antohan]

Do you mean among countries that call the game "soccer"? Am I missing a joke?

Or maybe it's some freak stat like New Zealand crashing out of the 2010 World Cup with an unbeaten record.

 

[432JuanMata]

The USA are the joint third greatest soccer nation of all time, by world cup results.

To be fair the US are ranked 11th in the world and it is based on geography and that alone. The US to qualify for a World Cup literally play Canada, Mexico and a bunch of Luxembourg level mugs.

The US if they where in Europe be the level of Ireland and rarely make a WC

 

[AkaAkuma]

Culture plays an important role and will have differences in all countries.

I grew up in England, but have lived in Japan for most of my adult life. Culturally the differences are easy to spot:

Japan:
1. There aren’t a lot of free to use pitches, goals or walls for kids to practise on.
2. futsal pitches are available but you have to pay and if young you’ll need car transport.
3. Locally organized teams are around which use school facilities.
4. These are generally run by dads, the Japanese focus on technique and inter play is established here.
5. Lot of standing around while things are being organized, so independence and free play isn’t a thing.
6. The weather plays its role. The grass grows quickly, lot of bugs, the heat. It stops kids going out to play.

I think Japan have done a great job of developing over the last 30 years. If there was more focus on kids going out to practise by themselves in addition to the perfectionism they show towards technique they would become an established top 10 team.

 

[spottieottiedopaliscious]

To be fair the US are ranked 11th in the world and it is based on geography and that alone. The US to qualify for a World Cup literally play Canada, Mexico and a bunch of Luxembourg level mugs.

The US if they where in Europe be the level of Ireland and rarely make a WC

Could counter that by saying if US is in Europe and we have the same population make up and resources we would probably be a very good football nation as it would be what we grew up doing instead of baseball, basketball and American Football.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

La Liga was the best league over the last two decades. The EPL has been the best league for maybe 8 years or so.

Yeah, the premier league was the best from 2005-2009. La Liga was the best up until like 2017.

 

[432JuanMata]

Could counter that by saying if US is in Europe and we have the same population make up and resources we would probably be a very good football nation as it would be what we grew up doing instead of baseball, basketball and American Football.

While that could be true the US obviously suffers from other sports being more favoured in their country and I do agree that the system they have from high school to college for AM and basketball is the best in the world and if put into football could see them be elite nation I was really just speaking of now and why the US is overrated.

I understand it’s not near there biggest sport they are able to still look going based on geography and alone that makes them seem good. I’m maybe be jealous as I wish Ireland got easier qualifiers

 

[do.ob]

Could counter that by saying if US is in Europe and we have the same population make up and resources we would probably be a very good football nation as it would be what we grew up doing instead of baseball, basketball and American Football.

I love that argument. Like that's the reason why a country with over 300 million people and the league with the 6th (?) highest revenue in the world can't even compete with some tiny countries.

 

[spottieottiedopaliscious]

While that could be true the US obviously suffers from other sports being more favoured in their country and I do agree that the system they have from high school to college for AM and basketball is the best in the world and if put into football could see them be elite nation I was really just speaking of now and why the US is overrated.

I understand it’s not near there biggest sport they are able to still look going based on geography and alone that makes them seem good. I’m maybe be jealous as I wish Ireland got easier qualifiers

Yeah I’m with you I think we definitely suffer from a lack of quality competition. Mexico used to be the one opponent that I always felt was the closest to what Europeans and South Americans face regularly but Mexico has dropped off so much over the past decade. Our record against quality opponents not in CONCACAF is awful.

Hey with Greenland looking to join CONCACAF maybe Ireland can make the jump….

 

[LA BOMBA]

When it comes to why countries from former Yugoslavia like Croatia are so good at football and why many elite players come from there it has a lot do with the fact that communist Yugoslavia was more focused on team sports than other communist countries, due to the ideology of "brotherhood and unity" to try to unite different nations and religious groups in the state.

This is why team sports like football, basketball, handball and volleyball were always pushed.

Football in particular was a big thing in communist Yugoslavia and many football clubs developed very distinct and strong identity which translated to kids wanting to play football for those clubs. Clubs like Hajduk, Dinamo, Red Star, Partizan but also lesser ones like Željezničar, Sarajevo, Rijeka, Velež, Vojvodina, Olimpija... Those clubs were all huge, developed many elite players, attracted masses of spectators and were important in their local community.

I think Yugoslavia simply developed a stronger football culture than other East Euro communist countries, where you only had a few big state-supported clubs and the rest were nothing clubs.

While it's true that today football leagues of ex-Yugoslavia countries are horrible, their clubs still attract great local youth talent which is then developed and moved on to Western Europe. Yugoslavia was also more open to the West than other communist countries and there is a tradition of people following foreign leagues like Italy since the 1970s and 1980s. The link to the West was always very strong.

These are the reasons why I think countries from ex-Yugoslavia have been better than other East Euro countries in terms of consistently producing elite players. Stronger football culture on local level and stronger historic ties to Western Europe.

While it's true that the regions of Dalmatia, Hercegovina and Montenegro also have the tallest men on average in the world, this is more relevant for other sports where size is important, whereas in football it can even be a disadvantage. So I don't think genetics plays any real part here.

 

[JagUTD]

Surely the Netherlands fits this criteria. More than football mad they practically redefined the modern game in the 70s and 80s yet have even less than England to show for their efforts. Some of the greatest names to have every graces the pitch are Dutch yet they have failed consistently at the highest level.

Maybe one day, they and England will have their Spanish era because until 2008, Spain were the correct answer to this question.

 

[LA BOMBA]

Surely the Netherlands fits this criteria. More than football mad they practically redefined the modern game in the 70s and 80s yet have even less than England to show for their efforts. Some of the greatest names to have every graces the pitch are Dutch yet they have failed consistently at the highest level.

Maybe one day, they and England will have their Spanish era because until 2008, Spain were the correct answer to this question.

I think this thread is more about countries that should be better at football overall.

Netherlands and pre-2008 Spain at least had great football clubs and continously produced great players and legends, it was only their national teams that were somewhat underperforming, but that really comes down just to tournament form.

Meanwhile if you look at countries like Mexico and Russia they're just overall bad relative to their size. Nothing to show for in recent decades in any segment of football.

 

[Red in STL]

I actually think the lack of public places to play football really counts against the US. Everything is divided into different districts so in the suburbs you have nowhere to play football. I don't think kids can have a casual kick about in a lot of places.

In the UK you're never that far from a field and often there's goalposts or something.

Actually there a plenty of public parks in the US, most areas have them, the issue is that often it needs parents to take their kids there because of the distances involved, a lot of kids do play at school

 

[DontBeMeanToBeRuud]

I know it's not the right answer but I've always wonder about how successful a Great Britain team would be more than England by itself.

 

[JogaBonitoRooney]

Indonesia 270 million people. Football is big there like everywhere. The older generations in Asia such as Indonesia, China, India, Vietnam etc had issues with physique and being shorter because of famine and war but millennials and new generations are in better shape and taller. So maybe there'll be better players from there in the next 50 years.

 

[Kellyiom]

They seemed to be at their best in the immediate post-apartheid years, fallen away since then.

Before anyone even jokingly says it I'm not advocating a return!

Yes, good shout. Definitely one that's linked to the GDP per capita or similar 'social development' index.

Allocating a World Cup, that was clearly the intention however the nation has failed to weed out corruption at every level in society.

With load-shedding, political stagnation and continued violence South Africa is probably already meeting criteria of being a failed state. I really don't know what can be done about it either, it's a long way back.

I've been to several places that might be considered dangerous like West Bank, Honduras, Lebanon and Zimbabwe but it was in South Africa where I had a genuine fear for my life.

Very sad because they're great people.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Surely the Netherlands fits this criteria. More than football mad they practically redefined the modern game in the 70s and 80s yet have even less than England to show for their efforts. Some of the greatest names to have every graces the pitch are Dutch yet they have failed consistently at the highest level.

Maybe one day, they and England will have their Spanish era because until 2008, Spain were the correct answer to this question.

Still a nation of only 17 million people or so. It’s about a third or less, when you compare to the likes of Spain, Italy, France, Germany and England.

 

[RedRoach]

South Africa

South Africa has a historic lack of investment in football. It is a popular sport but in higher education most of the good quality schools push rugby and cricket.

The population who have money (not going to name demographics) tend to watch cricket and rugby hence they get more air time and advertising money.

Breaking this historical cycle has proved challenging for the country.

 

[flappyjay]

Surely the Netherlands fits this criteria. More than football mad they practically redefined the modern game in the 70s and 80s yet have even less than England to show for their efforts. Some of the greatest names to have every graces the pitch are Dutch yet they have failed consistently at the highest level.

Maybe one day, they and England will have their Spanish era because until 2008, Spain were the correct answer to this question.

Spain back then wouldn't fit the criteria of the question same as Netherlands. Spain was a good football nation even before winning trophies. Greece aren't a better football nation than Netherlands because of one trophy. You can say they wasted talent or they are bottlers. But they are teams you always expect to see at major tournaments and it's a surprise if they don't qualify.

 

[Hammondo]

Also the real answer here is England. While they are a top side so it’s harsh the fact that they don’t have a euros and no WC since 1966 while producing some of the best players is a letdown.

This current team have the PL player of the season, the best #9 in the world, the CL winners superstar and still feel they won’t win this tournament says it all.

Foden, Kane, Bellingham, Saka, Rice and Walker are some of the best in the world for their position mix this in with the fact there back ups to these are still all class.

Yes and no, we produce certain types of footballers but due to our culture we don't produce all what we need.

 

[Red the Bear]

I know it's not the right answer but I've always wonder about how successful a Great Britain team would be more than England by itself.

I have as well, the addition of Denis law to the 66 and 70 team or souness and Dalglish to the very unfortunate 80s teams may have been just enough to nick them a few more titles seeing that they were quite solid from 1982 to 1990 and one of the better sides in 1970.

 

[rcoobc]

Do you mean among countries that call the game "soccer"? Am I missing a joke?

Nope, no joke.

Germany have won 6 world cups
Brazil are in second with 5
Italy and USA third with 4 wins
Argentina have 3
France, Uruguay and Spain all have 2
England, Japan and Norway all have 1 world cup win.

The USA are the joint third greatest football (soccer) team by world cup wins.

 

[Lash]

South Africa has a historic lack of investment in football. It is a popular sport but in higher education most of the good quality schools push rugby and cricket.

The population who have money (not going to name demographics) tend to watch cricket and rugby hence they get more air time and advertising money.

Breaking this historical cycle has proved challenging for the country.

Yeah, I got married there, so I have an affinity to the country. When you see the CT stadium and the money that went into the country for the WC, it's shocking the output. A great example is Morocco and what they did with their money from FIFA vs someone like SA, it's just not spent well enough.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Spain back then wouldn't fit the criteria of the question same as Netherlands. Spain was a good football nation even before winning trophies. Greece aren't a better football nation than Netherlands because of one trophy. You can say they wasted talent or they are bottlers. But they are teams you always expect to see at major tournaments and it's a surprise if they don't qualify.

Feel like the Netherlands aren't great at this. They missed WC2018 and Euros2016. Also WC2002.

 

[VorZakone]

Nope, no joke.

Germany have won 6 world cups
Brazil are in second with 5
Italy and USA third with 4 wins
Argentina have 3
France, Uruguay and Spain all have 2
England, Japan and Norway all have 1 world cup win.

The USA are the joint third greatest football (soccer) team by world cup wins.

Germany don't have 6 World Cups.

 

[doubleohseven]

Ireland should be a lot better.

 

[rcoobc]

Feel like the Netherlands aren't great at this. They missed WC2018 and Euros2016. Also WC2002.

That's mad. It completely passed me by that they missed 2018 and 2016. 24 team euros as well. Why do I not remember that

 

[rcoobc]

Germany don't have 6 World Cups.

They actually do.

 

[a_devil_inside]

Bulgaria never seem to do anything

 

[Bepi]

Germany don't have 6 World Cups.

He is considering women football as well, which is laudable and yet a twist even in 2024.

 

[rcoobc]

He is considering women football as well, which is laudable and yet a twist even in 2024.

Well done. And there is a serious point to this, even for men's football. Whenever this topic is brought up, the same question is asked. Why aren't the USA good at soccer?

They're the third greatest nation of all time by world cup results....

Okay yes that's from their women's records, but they came to soccer late and yet their women's team destroy nations who are absolutely obsessed with football.

Why don't the US dominate football. Well obviously because they didn't have a professional league for two decades, and are playing catch up?

Why don't England have world cups in women's football?

 

[top1whoisman]

Why don't England have world cups in women's football?

Banning women’s football for decades doesn’t help.

 

[Oranges038]

Yeah Ireland should be better for sure, don’t buy the GAA excuse. Look at the number of full-time coaches and it’s nearly bottom of UEFA despite being a rich country. And the interest is 100% there, the national team is a big deal. England training the players from teenagers papered over the cracks for years, but underinvestment is criminal as grassroots level. No reason to think Ireland couldn’t be, if not a heavyweight or Croatia level, but a more regular tournament qualifier with investment in coaching level with other UEFA countries.

It's the single biggest reason, there's barely another country in the world where their national sports are played at an amateur level and get so much more investment and interest than soccer or any other sport.

 

[do.ob]

Nope, no joke.

Germany have won 6 world cups
Brazil are in second with 5
Italy and USA third with 4 wins
Argentina have 3
France, Uruguay and Spain all have 2
England, Japan and Norway all have 1 world cup win.

The USA are the joint third greatest football (soccer) team by world cup wins.

Oh come on...

You can only beat what's in front of you, but the women's game is still in its absolute infancy it's only just developing into a proper professional competition. Equating the men's and women's competition is a joke, the women's game still needs time to have a level professional playing field.