Canada's lack of soccer prowess.

June 5, 2006 12:50 PM

Why is Canada not a better soccer (football) nation? We have lots of immigrants from soccer playing nations, plus youth participation in both organized and casual soccer is high. Canada is 83rd in the latest FIFIA rankings, sandwiched between Oman and Jordan. This seems odd when compared to other similar sized nations like Australia or Spain.
posted by Keith Talent to sports, hobbies, & recreation (25 answers total)

Organized and casual soccer don't have a long history in Canada. It takes time to develop coaches capable of developing talent.

That, and winter.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 1:00 PM on June 5, 2006

While I'm sure this is not the only answer - I'd imagine that money is a big reason why. Not only do we (Canadians) put less money into our soccer programs, but insurance is also a big issue. As a par example, the Canadian rugby team can't afford to pay the insurance for Canadian players who play for European league teams to come and play international games for Canada. Is this why Owen Hargreaves doesn't play for Canada? Probably not - playing for the UK is far more prestigious, but it's a thought.
posted by meerkatty at 1:01 PM on June 5, 2006

The winter answer is off base. Sweden is number eight in the world. Lots of countries with cold northern climates are successful.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:08 PM on June 5, 2006

Not to be pedantic or anything, but Hargreaves doesn't play for the UK - there isn't even a UK football (soccer) team!
posted by matthewr at 1:18 PM on June 5, 2006

Oh so terribly sorry.....England. Better?
posted by meerkatty at 1:22 PM on June 5, 2006

Yup, I'm happy now. Ta
posted by matthewr at 1:24 PM on June 5, 2006

Keith Talent writes "The winter answer is off base. Sweden is number eight in the world. Lots of countries with cold northern climates are successful."

It's not. Canadians have something better to do in the winter, hockey. And then in the summer roller/street hockey. Street hockey is cheaper than soccer and can be played anywhere. In elementry/high school I played street hockey year round for several hours a week.
posted by Mitheral at 1:25 PM on June 5, 2006

Canada's women's team is one of the best in the world.

Our men's under-20 team just beat Brazil's. Lots of people play soccer and there is year round play available to at least 3 million Canadians in SW BC, and there are lots of developmental leagues, etc. A lot of the best athletes play soccer in the summer and hockey in the winter -- a guy like Todd Bertuzzi is reckoned to have been talented enough at soccer to make a career in it, but hockey was a more sure-fire bet.

I suspect the main reason is a lack of semi-pro leagues laddering up to better pro leagues. its getting those good 19 year olds to be great 22 year olds. Also, the Canadian national team usually has a lot of trouble getting its best players together at the same time to train and play. This affects their results and hence their world rankings. as noted, quality coaching at all levels is probably part of it as well.
posted by Rumple at 1:31 PM on June 5, 2006

Street hockey is cheaper than soccer and can be played anywhere.

Not disputing how you spent your time, but how is street hockey "cheaper" than soccer? - All you need is a ball...
posted by jalexei at 1:31 PM on June 5, 2006

Does Canada have a top flight soccer league with the corresponding network of coaches and scouts?

I belive not.

As for roller hockey being cheaper than soccer? I laugh in your general direction. I can see the Brazilians strapping on the rollerskates as I type.
posted by gergtreble at 1:38 PM on June 5, 2006

One major reason is probably that Canada has no major soccer league. Until the inception of MLS, the United States was in a similar position to Canada's current situation. The growth of a major league has led to increasing popularity in the sport, as well as higher expectations in contintental and world competitions. (Hosting a World Cup didn't hurt, either!)

Toronto has been awarded an MLS franchise, so perhaps that will help.

Of course, there is always the issue that soccer is not, and probably never will be, Canada's number one sport. Nor its number two sport.

You noted Spain and Sweden, both of which list soccer as a national sport. Population/size is irrelevant - soccer is an integral part of the culture in many European countries, but not in Canada.

Canada will stay well behind the world's top footballing nations without stronger infrastructure and more popular support for the sport. A national league would be a good start, and putting together money/support to host a major tournament would be another strong step.
posted by sellout at 1:39 PM on June 5, 2006

The lack of a full national league is certainly detrimental. There are only 3 professional clubs at Canada's top level, and that top level is the USL 1st division, essentially a feeder division for the MLS. By way of comparison, while no one would claim that Sweden boasted a powerhouse of a national league, there are about 275 professional football clubs spread through the top 5 divisions of Sweden's league system. That kind of structure leads naturally to improved scouting, training, etc.

The state of US soccer was pretty much garbage until after we hosted the World Cup in 1994 and decided to form a new national league a year or so later. The dividends have been immediate and compelling, even though the MLS is comparatively awful (and they play through the summer tournament season, for reasons passing understanding). If Canada wants to develop a strong national team, they need a full national league.

(Further pedantry: there is not currently a UK national team, but it seems likely that there will be one in 2012 for the London Olympics, and the English FA are discussing submitting such a team to the 2008 Games.)

On preview: looks like we're all agreed then. Wonder how a Canadian Premier League would go over.
posted by Errant at 1:45 PM on June 5, 2006

Population/size is irrelevant

Agreed. Canada isn't in the World Cup because they finished last in a group that consisted of Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Honduras (though they did beat Belize.)
posted by smackfu at 1:46 PM on June 5, 2006

It's not. Canadians have something better to do in the winter, hockey

I think Sweden is pretty good at hockey too.

I imagine that a lack of a semi-pro league is a big issue. A lot of kids give up soccer when they're 16-18 years old if they don't see a future for themselves playing the sport.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how many indoor soccer fields Canada has. Those indoor facilities are important during the winter time, so that the players can spend the winter months playing together on a big field.

It's also a problem when a sport isn't number 1 or 2 in the country. A lot of times talented athletes are good at many sports. When the time comes to pick one sport, a lot of the time it's the most popular sport at that time.
posted by einarorn at 1:47 PM on June 5, 2006

Don't forget the Czech Republic. They have one of the best soccer teams in the world, and are also huge fans of hockey.
posted by Number27 at 1:54 PM on June 5, 2006

jalexei writes "but how is street hockey 'cheaper' than soccer? - All you need is a ball..."

gergtreble writes "As for roller hockey being cheaper than soccer? I laugh in your general direction. I can see the Brazilians strapping on the rollerskates as I type."

Street hockey is played on foot, no skates needed.

It wasn't clear but I was thinking of facilities and how I see soccer/hockey being played. Soccer only seems to be played on big expensive fields that alot of communites don't have the funds for. By players all wearing matched uniforms and fancy shoes. Street hockey is played anywhere you have a paved surface with nothing more than a stick and a ball. I'll conceed this is probably a chicken and egg thing and that in places where soccer is popular it would be cheaper than street hockey.
posted by Mitheral at 1:55 PM on June 5, 2006

The comparison with Australia might be instructive.

Australia has produced lots of terrific soccer players. Kewell, Viduka, Aloisi, even the loathsome Bosnic in his day.

But where did they play? In Europe, where the big money is. If you're good enough to play soccer at the professional level, almost by definition you have to leave the country.

Australia is in the world cup this year not because they've suddenly got good players, but because they've made a great effort to persuade those players to get onto the national team, brought in a top-flight coach, etc.

So, are there Canadian nationals playing overseas? Get them to phone home. You've got four years.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:05 PM on June 5, 2006

Soccer only seems to be played on big expensive fields that alot of communites don't have the funds for. By players all wearing matched uniforms and fancy shoes.

This sub-conversation is certainly something of a derail, but these comments are intriguing.

If we're comparing soccer with street hockey, worldwide, soccer is much more likely to be played on any given surface, with any given ball, with any given shoes (or none at all).

The fields, shoes, and uniforms you mention are luxuries that few of the world's hundreds of millions of soccer players can actually afford.
posted by sellout at 2:14 PM on June 5, 2006

einarorn writes "Also, it'd be interesting to see how many indoor soccer fields Canada has"

Calgary, a city of ~1 million has a single indoor facility with nine fields. It's quite close to me but it is better than an 45 minute drive from much of the city.

einarorn writes "It's also a problem when a sport isn't number 1 or 2 in the country. A lot of times talented athletes are good at many sports. When the time comes to pick one sport, a lot of the time it's the most popular sport at that time."

This was what I was getting at when I said Canadians have better thing to do in the winter. Soccer is going to be a poor runner up to hockey for most athletes here.
posted by Mitheral at 2:20 PM on June 5, 2006

To echo the above, the kids outside North America play soccer like Canadian kids play street hockey, ie. anywhere flatish they can find with any sorta round object as the ball. Anywhere from one to 200 kids to a side.
posted by Keith Talent at 2:21 PM on June 5, 2006

The hockey vs soccer costs thing is a complete red herring. Some of the smallest places in Canada have full sized hockey rinks. There will be no pool in town, but there will be a rink. The only reason any one plays street hockey is because that's the most important sport. In other countries, they play street football/soccer, which is cheaper than street hockey. (One ball for everyone, not a stick a piece).

Actually, I have to say that in many places in Toronto you play baseball or basketball. No one has hockey sticks.

As for why Canada isn't serious in men's soccer/football? A lot of reasons - lack of a professional market and likely movement of talented athletes into other sports come to my mind.

Will Canada every be a serious contender in men's football? Probably not until the image of the sport changes. As a Canadian in England, I see that football is considered to be the manliest of sports (except for maybe rugby). But in Canada, as in the US, soccer is a sport associated with children. It's the sport you play when you are too young to play the rest. I think it is also somewhat feminized in its image, though I'm thinking less of the image of women playing the sport than of the American phrase "soccer mom".

This sort of genderisation of a sport does happen. I was surprised to find out that Lacrosse is a "girl's sport" in England -- in rural Ontario it's one of the most macho. (Especially Mohawk style box-lacrosse).
posted by jb at 3:41 PM on June 5, 2006

I blame baseball. But I'm pretty sure that's changing, especially in Montreal where the Expos are gone and they have a decent A League Team that's getting over 9,000 fans a game. I can't vouche for the rest of the country. One thing that hurts us is that we don't have teams such as the Impact to cheer for. There are definitely a lot more indoor soccer pitches than there were a few years ago though.
posted by furtive at 3:41 PM on June 5, 2006

The Hargreaves situation has been repeated several times, and it looks like it will happen again - Canadian Sports Personalities, Soccer (football).
posted by Chuckles at 3:52 PM on June 5, 2006

But where did they play? In Europe, where the big money is. If you're good enough to play soccer at the professional level, almost by definition you have to leave the country.

The pioneer for that was Craig Johnston, who was packed up by his father and sent to England in the mid-70s, where he got a trial at Middlesbrough.

It's fairly well-known that Steve Nash had all the potential to be a professional footballer, and grew up in one of the parts of Canada that is amenable to the game, climate-wise; had he chosen that route, though, he'd have been qualified to play for England through his parents. But there was no structure in which to do so, and no real incentive.
posted by holgate at 5:46 PM on June 5, 2006

It's fairly well-known that Steve Nash had all the potential to be a professional footballer

and as that link notes, Steve Nash's younger brother Martin is a professional soccer player and has 30 caps for Canada.
posted by Rumple at 6:28 PM on June 5, 2006