US's Max Arfsten and Belgium's Nathan De Cat fight for the ball during a friendly soccer game between the United States national team and Belgian national soccer team Red Devils in Atlanta, on Saturday 28 March 2026, in preparation for the 2026 World Cup. BELGA PHOTO DIRK WAEM (Photo by DIRK WAEM / BELGA MAG / Belga / AFP via Getty Images)

BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images

For a country with more than 343 million people, world-class athletic facilities and enormous financial resources, the United States should theoretically be a dominant force in world soccer. Yet despite periods of progress, the U.S. men’s national team still trails traditional powers such as Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Spain in both consistency and player production.

The question is no longer whether America can compete (it can!), but why it still struggles to become a true global powerhouse.

The answer lies less in talent and more in structure. American soccer has historically developed through a fragmented, expensive and commercially driven system that differs sharply from the development models used by many elite soccer nations.

America has the population, resources and growing soccer culture necessary to someday become a global powerhouse. But reaching that level requires more than enthusiasm or infrastructure. It requires a system designed to maximize talent rather than monetize participation. At the center of the issue is the infamous pay-to-play model we see in travel soccer.

Unlike other nations, where pro clubs fund youth academies and scout aggressively in working-class communities, elite youth soccer in the United States has often required families to spend thousands of dollars annually on club fees, travel, coaching and tournaments.

This creates a fundamental contradiction. Globally, soccer is known as the most accessible sport in the world. In America, however, it has often become a middle- and upper-middle-class suburban sport. Talented players from lower-income communities — many of whom grow up immersed in soccer culture — can be excluded before they ever can enter elite pathways. Critics argue this dramatically narrows the national talent pool.

The consequences are cultural as well as technical. In countries like Brazil or Argentina, the game is woven into daily life. Young players develop creativity and instinct through informal street and neighborhood games long before entering organized systems. American youth soccer, by contrast, has often emphasized structure, travel tournaments and parental investment over spontaneous play and technical imagination.

Former coaches and players have repeatedly pointed to this system as a developmental weakness. Some observers have argued that American youth systems prioritize short-term winning, college recruiting and parental satisfaction instead of producing elite players. Since many clubs rely financially on family fees, retaining paying participants can become more important than creating a merit-based environment.

Another major factor is the late professionalization of American soccer. European and South American countries have spent many decades — sometimes more than a century — building club pyramids tied directly to development. The United States lacked a stable top-flight league until the launch of Major League Soccer in 1996. That delay matters enormously. Elite soccer nations developed deep scouting networks and developmental philosophies over generations, while American soccer remains largely disconnected and regional.

Women’s Soccer And Youth Academies

Women’s soccer, on the other hand, grew in the United States following the passage of Title IX in 1972. That put the U.S. women’s team ahead of traditional soccer nations throughout much of the world. As a result, the Americans have been crowned world champions four times (and as recently as 2019) – making them the most successful women’s national soccer program on the planet.

To its credit, MLS has significantly improved the situation over the past 15 years. Modern MLS academies are largely free and increasingly resemble European club systems. Clubs such as the New York Red Bulls, Philadelphia Union and FC Dallas have produced high-level talent. The growth of MLS NEXT has also created pathways from youth level to the pros. As a result, more American teenagers now receive superior coaching and minutes earlier in their careers.

This progress is visible in the current generation of American players. More U.S. internationals now play in Europe’s top leagues than at any previous point in history. The technical level of the player pool has improved dramatically compared to even a decade ago.

Nonetheless, structural gaps remain. One major hurdle is scale. Europe’s leading nations possess hundreds of pro clubs connected to youth development systems. The United States, by comparison, still has relatively few fully funded academies spread across a massive geographic area.

The broader American sports ecosystem also competes heavily for elite athletes. Unlike in most soccer-dominant countries, many of the nation’s best young athletes gravitate toward the NBA, NFL or baseball because those sports offer stronger cultural prestige, college scholarships and larger financial payouts. In soccer, the men’s college system remains substandard compared to global standards. Elite international prospects increasingly bypass college these days, but the transition directly to MLS or in Europe.

There remain reasons for optimism. Investment is growing rapidly ahead of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, which the United States will co-host with Canada and Mexico. MLS expansion, improved academies and free development initiatives are slowly reducing barriers.

The key challenge moving forward is whether American soccer can fully transition from a participation economy to a true development ecosystem. Until these two incentives align, the U.S. may continue producing good teams — but will never fulfill its fullest potential.

Clemente Lisi is the author of "The World Cup: A History of the Planet’s Biggest Sporting Event, 2026 Edition."