Why don't black athletes dominate soccer?

There aren't many african-americans playing baseball either.

 

Brazil? Argentina? Seriously?

Maybe you need to be asking yourself about the demographics of European populations, since that seems to be the actual area of your concern.

 

The short answer is that the national developmental organizations in most African countries are way behind those in Europe and Latin America (and even the U.S.). It's mainly economic, not because of race.

 

AZ made me dig for some population numbers, and there is some truth in this...

In America, 12.4% of the population has Africa in their ancestry.

England lists about 2.2%, Italy 7.5%, France 2.0% and Germany and the Netherlands are less than 2.0%. So the numbers just are not there to make a dent with the exception of Italy.

The financial end and training does explain to me why teams from the Africa just do not have the push to win the World Cup or make it to the semis or the finals.

 

In America, it's all socio-economic and not racial.

The best soccer players in the U.S. are usually in the suburbs. They are white kids named Ethan and Brady, not white kids who are all tattoo'd up from lower-income neighborhoods. Also, most of our top soccer players are under 6'0". A sports that is low to the ground - using the feet - is an advantage for soccer. Not so in basketball (obviously), baseball (unless your speed can make up for less range) or football.

Same with swimmers and tennis players. I think baseball is a combination of socio-economic and weather -- look at the dominance of California, Arizona, Texas and Florida-raised players.

Basketball and football, in the U.S., are now dominated - almost entirely - by those who may come from "lower-income" or "single-parent" backgrounds. I think anger and desperation fuel success of so many of these athletes. For some, this IS their only way out.

Both basketball and football have an unthinkable "weeding out" process. In basketball, only 20-25 U.S.-raised basketball players enter the league each year. College football does the weeding out for the NFL. 85 scholarships at 120+ D-1 schools. Out of all of that, what, 150 rookies enter the NFL. It takes a lot of motivation (re: anger) to get past all of the competition for these jobs. When talent is close to being equal, the person who wants it more will perform better.

The "anger" factor is why I also gently nudge my son towards baseball and not just basketball. He wants to play in college but we are well off enough where he probably won't be "hard wired" to be a ruthless exterminator on the basketball court.

As for my daughter, is it wrong of me to fake that I enjoy canoeing around her so she develops a love for women's crew?

 

Well, that probably explains the lack of whites on the Ghana team.

 

So the initial premise might be completely wrong, at least from a European perspective. The proportions of players of African heritage on the English, French and Dutch teams (especially France) is vastly higher than the numbers listed above.

 

Think about it with African-American kids. They grow up while watching guys like LeBron James of basketball and Ryan Howard make millions and become extremely popular. They don't pay as much attention to guys like Jozy Altidore. Why would you want to star in a sport that's non-existent in America with sports like baseball and basketball dominating the landscape?

 

why? because in america it's the other football that matters, stupid. the best african-american athletes under 6-foot-4 -- the ones who might fall to soccer in any other country -- gravitate towards football. the nfl is as massively popular in african-american communities as the nba, moreso, i'd argue, in the under-30 demographic. baseball is a distant third. soccer? no fields, no pick-up opportunities, no push from parents to create one = no hungry, working-class, african-american talent pool for the sport.

 

Because they don't play.

-30-