Sampson’s Analysis of World Cup Is Chart Topper
If anyone were to chart Steve Sampson’s year, the resultant graph would look very much like a large letter V.
The memorable 1-0 victory over Brazil at the Coliseum in February would be the first high point. The three failures at the World Cup in France in June and Sampson’s subsequent resignation would obviously mark the low point.
But what about the final high? Where did the rebound occur?
It came this month in Beverly Hills, where in a stunningly honest and hard-hitting address at Futbol de Primera’s inaugural soccer symposium, the former coach of the U.S. national team exposed more than a few myths about the state of the sport in this country.
Given carte blanche to be controversial, Sampson took full advantage. The result was a refreshingly candid speech that opened more than a few eyes to what went on behind the scenes in 1998.
Sampson traced the roots of the 1998 failure back even further than this year.
“For soccer to succeed in the United States, we need a true professional soccer league [emphasizing] the promotion and development of the American player,” he said. “Unlike the NASL [the now-defunct North American Soccer League], we need American players to play significant roles on the field, not subservient roles to foreign players here on holiday.”
But, he said, the delay in launching Major League Soccer, while understandable from a business standpoint, had “significant repercussions” on the national team.
“From a purely technical standpoint, the delay . . . impacted the development of our youngest professionals. Can you imagine how much better our 1996 Olympic team would have been had those players been in a professional environment since 1995? How much better prepared [they] would have been to be able to step into the international arena?
“You cannot recapture those critical years of development. We are playing catch-up in terms of development and identification of players who can play at the highest levels and will be [playing catch-up] for some time to come.”
MLS hurt in other ways too.
“What other country that had a legitimate chance of qualifying for the World Cup had to deal with the inception of a new domestic professional league?” Sampson asked. “Purely from a national team standpoint, we would have been better off having [top American] players stay in Europe or Mexico.”
Instead, those players were “enticed” to leave foreign clubs and join MLS.
“The return came with a price. . . . Let’s not be naive. Returning to the United States gave them a level of comfort that was impossible to enjoy [abroad]. It made them instantly stars of [their MLS teams]. For a promotional standpoint, the star factor was crucial for the success of the league. For personal development and for preparation for World Cup qualifying, it was highly detrimental.”
Sampson blasted MLS for having “no reserve team system in place” in 1996 and ’97 “or any plan for the professional development of its most elite young athletes,” calling that a “worst-case scenario” from a national team perspective.
“As the national team coach, I was in a very awkward position,” he said.
“Publicly, it was my obligation to support the league . . . but for anyone to think in ’96 and ’97 that MLS was proper preparation for a World Cup, then they have very little understanding for the demands of the international level.
“Fortunately, in 1998 we have seen progress, with more teams playing tactically sound for 90 minutes and with greater organization in defense. . . . However, league-wide, defensive pressure, technical proficiency and overall physical speed and power lack considerably when compared to the best leagues in the world.”
With MLS in its infancy, Sampson had to rely on veterans who had played overseas “bringing with them a daily commitment to their trade in order to maintain their form.” Unfortunately, he said, some did not.
“The comfort zone that exists here in the United States is one that is sought by most great players when their playing careers are coming to an end. They love the United States because their performance is not scrutinized as much by the media or by the fans.”
That, Sampson said, “allowed some of our domestic players to fall into the trap of not making their trade as a soccer player a priority. Weight gain, injury and poor form was directly related to either lack of intensity in their training and/or the pursuit of off-the-field business interests.”
The decision by U.S. Soccer not to compete in the 1997 Copa America in Bolivia was another mistake, Sampson said, adding that it “could have served as a true test for our readiness to participate in a World Cup.”
(U.S. Soccer will repeat the mistake in 1999, having chosen to put MLS ahead of taking part in the Copa America in Paraguay.)
In addition, 16 months of labor negotiations “drove a wedge between players and management, creating an atmosphere of mistrust,” Sampson said. “I’m convinced that this process, combined with the inception of a new league, led to the single-worst preparation for [World Cup] qualifying of any country within CONCACAF.”
The players negotiated a $1-million bonus for qualifying for France ’98 and an additional
$1 million for each subsequent round they participated in, he revealed. They also received $20,000 for being named to the U.S. team and $5,000 per player per game whether they played or not.
“In essence, once they were named to the World Cup squad they were guaranteed $35,000 and this placed them in the top five paid teams in the World Cup. The reality is the World Cup is becoming more and more an opportunity financially and less and less an opportunity to represent one’s country.”
Sampson said some American players are earning between $5,000 and $250,000 from sponsors.
“I have no problem with players getting what they or their agents negotiate. After all, this is America. But when a sponsor offers large bonuses for starting in a World Cup, for scoring a goal, then this undermines the integrity of the team and it undermines the decisions of the coach.”
The U.S. also is at a disadvantage because of its makeup, Sampson said.
“Most, if not all, other countries enjoy the advantage of playing at home. For years, U.S. Soccer has had to compromise our home-field advantage in lieu of greater financial opportunities at the box office.”
That did not happen in qualifying for France, but only after “lengthy debate.”
“This will always be a challenge for the U.S. because we live in an open society that embraces all walks of life from every corner of the earth. . . . We are a melting pot and we will always find it difficult to enjoy a home-field advantage.
“National team games for most fans in the United States are not events where we demonstrate passionate patriotism. . . . Reverence and passion for the game of soccer in the United States will take decades to achieve.”
The growth of MLS is helping improve quality on the field, but the league has to develop a reserve team system, Sampson said.
“Without a reserve team system, we stand no chance of being competitive with the rest of the world.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the expectations going into this World Cup were inflated and unrealistic. We were a victim of our own success and a victim of many unknowledgeable members of the press and public.
“Yes, we have progressed. And, yes, we have gained respect in many parts of the world. But we are not yet to the point where our full national team can consistently beat the very best teams in the world, especially in the World Cup.”
