By Stan Johnston
The next two World Cup qualifiers for the U.S. Men’s National Team are its biggest games in 28 years. Nobody wants to say it, but failure to qualify for Russia 2018 would be a major setback for America’s soccer program, athletes and professional leagues. Welcome to 1989.
If you have followed the ups and downs of soccer progress in America over the past 30 years, the current situation facing the USMNT is déjà vu. Like this year’s team, the 1989 group entered its final two games needing points to qualify for the World Cup (Italia ’90). Back then the U.S. men hadn’t qualified for the tournament in 40 years – a source of major embarrassment because America had been picked to host the 1994 World Cup. (Elite nations panic at a four-year absence.)
I was among the sports writers covering the team as it trained at St. Louis Soccer Park in Fenton ahead of those 1989 qualifiers. The U.S. had gotten four tough points on the road, beating El Salvador and tying Guatemala. A win over El Salvador in St. Louis would ensure they qualified – in front of a home crowd to boot. But like this year’s team, the 1989 version didn’t do things the easy way. I was among about 8,500 who watched the Americans struggle to a 0-0 tie. That meant the USMNT had to go on the road and beat a tough Trinidad & Tobago team in Port of Spain four days later.
The Americans won 1-0 on a dramatic Paul Cagliuri goal in the 30th minute. Media dubbed it the “Shot Heard Around the World.” It was true in the world of soccer then, because it put U.S. players in front of a global audience for the first time in a generation. It also changed the trajectory of American soccer and paved the way for today’s programs at every level.
What can we learn from the 1989 experience (other than to win)? Not much, because the teams were very different. All 26 men on the current roster play on professional clubs. Only two of the 1989 starters were professional players (Caliguri and Peter Vermes). The rest were college or semi-pro players. They had virtually no professional options in the States because the original North American Soccer League had collapsed in 1983 and Major League Soccer (MLS) wasn’t formed until 1993.
Despite their differences, the teams faced the same challenge: Two games left and needing points to qualify to represent the CONCACAF region. This time it’s a home match against a good Panama team two weeks from Friday (Oct. 6) and a road match at Trinidad & Tobago four days later. To fully make this déjà vu, the Americans would tie Panama and be forced to win at Port of Spain again – this time to avoid missing the tournament for the first time since, well, the 1989 team played there.
The 2017 men’s team has evolved into a big bet by U.S. Soccer that American MLS players are ready for prime time
The impact of not qualifying would be felt most by MLS. The 2017 men’s team has evolved into a big bet by U.S. Soccer that American MLS players are ready for prime time. In their last two games, the 26-man U.S. roster featured 19 MLS players – including all three goalies and four of the five forwards. That weighting was ensured when Bruce Arena was named to replace Jürgen Klinsmann, who had encouraged top young American players to cut their teeth in Europe. Arena, former coach of the Los Angeles Galaxy and USMNT, responded as expected by picking mostly MLS players.
To be fair, Arena has done a good job on many levels. He especially understands the inconsistencies you face in international soccer – from player quality and conditioning to officiating and field conditions. Having been a successful coach at both the country and professional levels, he was a calming influence at a critical point. That being said, the U.S. men have come to a familiar crossroads: They must get points in the next two games – and some breaks in other games – or they will miss the World Cup.
Why is that so important to the national program? It means the sport’s most prestigious event would take place without a single U.S. athlete on the screen the entire three weeks. That lack of exposure for America’s players and its top domestic league would have a tangible impact. Athletes would lose endorsement money and bargaining power. The MLS would lose TV revenue from devalued contracts and loss of interest from markets outside the U.S. But most of all, the stacking of the USMNT with players from MLS means their success – and failure – have become intrinsically linked, by design.
It’s a big risk. The U.S. could get in the tournament, make a worldwide impression and boost the reputation the top American domestic league. Or it could fail to qualify, go dark from the world soccer stage during its biggest event and reinforce the global perception of MLS as a nice place for former European stars to retire (but not a league for serious players). Most important, emerging U.S. stars such as Christian Pulisic who play in Europe could miss the opportunity to win the hearts of a growing domestic fan base.
Ironically, MLS players have played key roles for Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama during this qualifying cycle. But MLS is a U.S.- based league and needs to build the visibility of home-grown stars to endure long-term (ask the original NASL). Success will come when the nation’s top male athletes choose to play soccer, and to do it at home. That is still far from a given in America today.
The good news: The next generation of U.S. men will become its best ever (a subject for a future blog). Unfortunately, what happens in the next two games will have a huge impact on their future. Let’s hope it’s truly déjà vu, and that over the next month someone energizes soccer in America with a new shot heard around the world.
Front View Mirror 