ESPN top 100 athletes since year 2000

[Tie Domi Esquire]

I hope the NHL continues to change the game in order to appeal to people that hate the sport.

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

Some of these are wild.

Sidney Crosby was a HOF before Aaron Donald played a snap in the NFL and dudes already retired lol

 

[DaveG]

I don’t know what this means tbh.

Pretty sure it means that a shitload of kids play the sport in the US but it's not taken seriously, more as a means to get the kids out of the house for a few hours to kill some calories before they drive the (non-coach) parents insane. And to an extent, outside of the elite talents once you get to say the U-12 level and up, that's a fair critique.

 

[John Mandalorian]

I don’t disagree with your overall point, but soccer is the 3rd most popular team sport in the USA after baseball and basketball, for both youth and adults — well ahead of American football except for the specific 4-year timeframe when American boys are systematically funneled into high school football programs by the million.

But taking the full developmental system into account, the USA arguably has a much larger actual talent pool in soccer than in football. The difference in global results is due to higher competition in soccer, where there are billions of other competitors worldwide, whereas international competition in football is effectively zero. But if you look at high level outcomes in women’s soccer, where the global talent pool is less competitive, the Americans are a dominant world power because their soccer talent pool really is at a football-like level.

I’d also say that of all sports (other than sumo wrestling and basketball Cs), American football promotes players more on filling a specific physical profile rather than for overall athleticism. Some of them are Julius Peppers types who could succeed at a high level in other sports, but a lot of them are where they are because they have the quickest feet among men 6’2”-6’6”, which is quite different than competing with 90% of the population on overall athleticism and conditioning — which is the case in soccer. Release them to compete in other sports and the success stories will be the exception rather than the rule.

How can you make the point that it’s more competitive because it’s more popular without considering the number of teams and leagues? There are probably at least five times more club teams than there are NFL teams. You’d have to look at ratios of teams compared to talent pool to make the point you are trying to make in saying it’s more competitive.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Messi not being able to cut it in the NFL doesn't mean football doesn't provide top competition. I think the exclusion suggests there's even more athletic difficulty in football than in soccer.

If by “athletic difficulty” you mean there is a size requirement for being a good player, sure. Just understand that means the players who progress are being selected for factors other than athleticism.

An extreme example of this is basketball. Anyone who is 7 feet tall has a 1:6 chance of playing in the NBA. That system clearly selects for specific physical dimensions first, the ability to stay healthy within that frame second, and with athleticism a very distant third. The same selective factors are present in football, just to less of an extreme. That’s not a sign of “athletic difficulty”, it’s a sign of choosing for factors other than athleticism.

Maybe in high school teams get away with trotting out any scrub who is 6'4" or taller to be a lineman or something but at the college level or NFL...not a chance. These guys have unique body types but they're hardly guaranteed a spot just because of their size. The level of physicality and athleticism a college or pro football player has to have is off the charts and they're competing against a wide enough talent pool, yes even exclusive to the States, justifies their placement and representation on these lists. It's the same for the NBA.

The shortest lineman in the NFL is 6’1”. That means the entire 700-man cohort of NFL linemen are chosen from a pool which represents only 10% of the male population — a pool about the size of the population of Zimbabwe.

If I assembled a team of 700 guys from Zimbabwe and told you they are the cream of the most elite talent pool on the planet, you would think that was a ridiculous claim, and you would be right. It absolutely would not matter how many resources I have poured into these guys, you would know intuitively that something is up with the idea of this many people coming from this small of a talent pool and somehow exceeding the sum results of a pool which is multiple orders of magnitude larger.

know this is pompous but the best athletes in the world live in the United States of America.

Yes, that is pompous and false. The USA has a lot to be proud of, but the idea that the world cannot compete with American athletes is just ridiculous. There are so many counterpoints to that, I don’t even know where to start. Who’s the reigning AL MVP? NL MVP? NBA MVP? NHL MVP?

The one remaining league where the current best player is American is the NFL, which is the one remaining league populated almost entirely by Americans.

 

[tarheelhockey]

How can you make the point that it’s more competitive because it’s more popular without considering the number of teams and leagues? There are probably at least five times more club teams than there are NFL teams. You’d have to look at ratios of teams compared to talent pool to make the point you are trying to make in saying it’s more competitive.

You’re talking pro football, I’m talking entire talent pool.

The only age range where more people play football than soccer is the specific 4-year period in high school where you have 100 kids playing football and maybe 40 playing soccer. Outside of that very specific window, soccer’s amateur system is multiples larger than football’s. Inevitably, an exponentially larger system is going to uncover more talent than an exponentially smaller system.

BUT, in the case of soccer, whatever talent is discovered will be held up against a global pool of competition. To date, that has meant mediocre results in the larger scheme of things. Whereas the talent discovered in football will only be held up against other talent in the same pool. So if you find the best soccer goalie in the USA, he will quickly discover what it’s like to be the 50th best goalie in the world; whereas if you find the best RB in the USA, you have just found the best RB in the world by default.

 

[norrisnick]

It was established that the 5 largest populations in the world don’t care that much about soccer/football and you still persist with this “no one cares about American football”. It’s comical.

Probably because no one cares about handegg...

 

[x Tame Impala]

70% of players in the MLB are from the USA
95% of players in the NBA are from the USA
28% of players in the NHL are from the USA, that's more representation from: Switzerland, Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Germany, and Sweden combined.

These are relatively international sports and America's representation is undeniable. Giannis, Jokic, and Embid winning the last 5 years doesn't eliminate the 70 years of US dominance in that sport. The same for baseball.

Probably because no one cares about handegg...

ESPN and the Americans it represents care. We value the athletic abilities of football, basketball, and baseball players more than what soccer brings to the table. Take it or leave it.

The list sucks regardless but it's funny seeing all the non-Americans whining about lack of representation

 

[Albatros]

It was established that the 5 largest populations in the world don’t care that much about soccer/football

Eh? In China soccer is number one or two more or less tied with basketball. In India number two, albeit far behind cricket. In Pakistan similar, although also field hockey is probably ahead. In Indonesia clear number one.

The statement is like saying that people in the United States don't care about baseball.

 

[tarheelhockey]

70% of players in the MLB are from the USA
95% of players in the NBA are from the USA
28% of players in the NHL are from the USA, that's more representation from: Switzerland, Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Germany, and Sweden combined.

These are relatively international sports and America's representation is undeniable. Giannis, Jokic, and Embid winning the last 5 years doesn't eliminate the 70 years of US dominance in that sport. The same for baseball.

So what you’re saying is the USA with 350 million people is practically the only place where basketball is taken seriously at a high level for the past 70 years

… and to this day the USA still produces 95% of the basketball talent pool

…. and within one generation of basketball opening up to being a global sport we are now on 6 consecutive years where the MVP has been won by that other 5% of the pool

… and this tells you that the USA automatically produces the best athletes?

 

[norrisnick]

70% of players in the MLB are from the USA
95% of players in the NBA are from the USA
28% of players in the NHL are from the USA, that's more representation from: Switzerland, Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Germany, and Sweden combined.

These are relatively international sports and America's representation is undeniable. Giannis, Jokic, and Embid winning the last 5 years doesn't eliminate the 70 years of US dominance in that sport. The same for baseball.


ESPN and the Americans it represents care. We value the athletic abilities of football, basketball, and baseball players more than what soccer brings to the table. Take it or leave it.

The list sucks regardless but it's funny seeing all the non-Americans whining about lack of representation

Leaving it, thanks.

Also some of your numbers above are completely out of whack...

 

[x Tame Impala]

So what you’re saying is the USA with 350 million people is practically the only place where basketball is taken seriously at a high level for the past 70 years

… and to this day the USA still produces 95% of the basketball talent pool

…. and within one generation of basketball opening up to being a global sport we are now on 6 consecutive years where the MVP has been won by that other 5% of the pool

… and this tells you that the USA automatically produces the best athletes?

MVP's aren't the only metric. My point stands, by and large the athletes in the US are among the best in the world. I personally think the athletic requirements in the NFL and NBA are tougher than what you get in soccer. Agree to disagree if you want but if our athletes were focused on soccer we would be the dominant nation in the sport.

Leaving it, thanks.

Also some of your numbers above are completely out of whack...

Post your corrections then because i checked a few sources

 

[tarheelhockey]

MVP's aren't the only metric.

No, but 6 consecutive MVPs says a lot about what’s going on in the NBA.

Especially when the MVP ballot goes like this:

1. Serbia
2. Canada
3. Slovenia
4. Greece
5. USA

Last year:

1. Cameroon
2. Serbia
3. Greece
4. USA
5. Canada

The year before that:

1. Serbia
2. Cameroon
3. Greece
4. USA
5. Slovenia

This isn’t some one-off fluke. Legitimately, the very best players in basketball right now are not American.

My point stands, by and large the athletes in the US are among the best in the world.

“Among”, sure. But that isn’t what you said before.

I personally think the athletic requirements in the NFL and NBA are tougher than what you get in soccer. Agree to disagree if you want but if our athletes were focused on soccer we would be the dominant nation in the sport.

Perhaps, and if that were the case we would be competing against a global talent pool best-on-best. And if we dominated in that scenario, we could legitimately say we had the world’s dominant pool of athletes.

But that is not the case. We focus on niche sports where we are increasingly seeing the rest of the world take over, and the one sport we truly dominate is the one where there is no competition at all. It’s a bit of a sham, really.

 

[Albatros]

Shouldn't also US soccer players do better than everyone else if they're a) more athletic and b) that's what enables domination? According to FIFA there were 2,791 professional soccer players in the United States last year, as opposed to 1,562 in Germany for example. Also the number of amateur players is among the highest in the world. So if the numbers are there and among them are by default better athletes, why doesn't it show?

 

[ColbyChaos]

I said grow the actual sport, not the audience necessarily at that time.

Grow the sport of basketball

Yet 99% of Americans and Canadians don’t even know who the f they are lol. Rhonda Roussey should have been listed before all those WNBA bozos who didn’t grow shit.

Kobe grew the game. Lebron grew the game. KD grew the game.

Those WNBA players are still unrecognizable to this day

 

[Nogatco Rd]

I googled NFL nationality and I'm reading that "in 2017 roughly 3% of active players were born outside of the United States", and there are around 1,700 players in it. Does that paint a picture of a globally popular sport?

so if there were no American players in the EPL, does that mean soccer isn’t popular in the US?

The fact that one country is dominant at the highest level of competition doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the only country where the sport is popular.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Do you think people just woke up one day and started watching Caitlin Clark?

She broke barriers but players before her put the eyeballs on her to begin with.

Yeah the great athletes of a league that averaged 12 fans a game and couldn’t sell out their stadiums or even turn a profit really laid out the ground work

 

[John Mandalorian]

You’re talking pro football, I’m talking entire talent pool.

The only age range where more people play football than soccer is the specific 4-year period in high school where you have 100 kids playing football and maybe 40 playing soccer. Outside of that very specific window, soccer’s amateur system is multiples larger than football’s. Inevitably, an exponentially larger system is going to uncover more talent than an exponentially smaller system.

BUT, in the case of soccer, whatever talent is discovered will be held up against a global pool of competition. To date, that has meant mediocre results in the larger scheme of things. Whereas the talent discovered in football will only be held up against other talent in the same pool. So if you find the best soccer goalie in the USA, he will quickly discover what it’s like to be the 50th best goalie in the world; whereas if you find the best RB in the USA, you have just found the best RB in the world by default.

I’m talking about both.

 

[GreeningOil]

This list is okay…

But it’s too hard to compare sports to have a list that everyone would agree with. Some sports are harder to win a championship.

For example, a tennis star could win 4 in a single year. And it’s totally dependent on that athlete to win.

Team sports are different, where the best player can be the best, and still not win in that given year.

I am biased, but I think I’d do it much differently, but it would be just as subjective. This is kind of a nonsense list

 

[norrisnick]

MVP's aren't the only metric. My point stands, by and large the athletes in the US are among the best in the world. I personally think the athletic requirements in the NFL and NBA are tougher than what you get in soccer. Agree to disagree if you want but if our athletes were focused on soccer we would be the dominant nation in the sport.


Post your corrections then because i checked a few sources

I started at the NBA, mostly because 95% American seemed aburd.

nba.com's player roster

Divided by

Equals

75.8%

And I stopped there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I’m talking about both.

Then see my last paragraph. The best football players in the world are identical to the best players in the NFL are identical to the best players in college are identical to the best players produced by American high schools. Same exact pool of people.

Imagine the NBA with ONLY players who graduated from American high schools. It would be a much lower caliber league. Never mind how bad that would look in soccer.

That’s the difference it makes to have a global talent pool. The NFL looks great because it has no competition.

 

[Machinehead]

Yeah the great athletes of a league that averaged 12 fans a game and couldn’t sell out their stadiums or even turn a profit really laid out the ground work

Every game of the WNBA Finals was sold out last year. Almost 60,000 seats. This is just an ignorant take.

Grow the sport of basketball

Yet 99% of Americans and Canadians don’t even know who the f they are lol. Rhonda Roussey should have been listed before all those WNBA bozos who didn’t grow shit.

Kobe grew the game. Lebron grew the game. KD grew the game.

Those WNBA players are still unrecognizable to this day

Growing the game wasn't a criteria!!

It was "who had the better career?"

I agree 100% that Rousey is a glaring omission on this list but it would also be an omission to not include all of the WNBA entries based on the criteria of the list.

 

[Machinehead]

If the criteria were mainstream impact, the list would be LeBron, Federer, and 98 soccer players.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Then see my last paragraph. The best football players in the world are identical to the best players in the NFL are identical to the best players in college are identical to the best players produced by American high schools. Same exact pool of people.

Imagine the NBA with ONLY players who graduated from American high schools. It would be a much lower caliber league. Never mind how bad that would look in soccer.

That’s the difference it makes to have a global talent pool. The NFL looks great because it has no competition.

You mentioned competition. Theres one league and only 32 teams for American football. Whereas, there are several leagues and many more teams for soccer/football players. Yes, soccer/football teams have smaller rosters so factor that in as well.

If you identify all the major soccer/football leagues and determine the scarcity of roster positions isnt as great as the NFL, your comment about it being more competitive falls apart.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You mentioned competition. Theres one league and only 32 teams for American football. Whereas, there are several leagues and many more teams for soccer/football players. Yes, soccer/football teams have smaller rosters so factor that in as well.

If you identify all the major soccer/football leagues and determine the scarcity of roster positions isnt as great as the NFL, your comment about it being more competitive falls apart.

But the numbers don’t scale in football’s favor.

Soccer has a “big 5” leagues:
- English Premier League (20 teams)
- La Liga (20 teams)
- Serie A (20 teams)
- Bundesliga (18 teams)
- Ligue 1 (18 teams)
Total: 96 teams

Without getting into the complicated roster rules of each league, we can generally say about 25 players will touch the field per team per season. So that’s 2400 roster spots available for “major league” soccer players per season.

The NFL is 1/3rd that size with 32 teams. Roster limit is 53, which gives us around 1700 roster spots available for “major league” football players per season.

That means there are around 41% roster spots available for soccer players.

So now let’s estimate how many people are competing for those spots.

According to the National Football Foundation, there are around 1 million registered high school football players in the USA in a given year. Given that any serious football player must become a registered high school player before becoming an NFL prospect, the 1M figure is a very precise measure of how many young men are actually taking football seriously and attempting to play it competitively. Technically the NFL has other sources of talent (e.g. punters from Australian rugby leagues) but those are negligible factors.

According to the Sports Research Guide at the Library of Congress, there are around 240 million registered soccer players worldwide. We could eliminate 90% of that figure and it would still be 24x higher than the number of football players.

So 41% more roster spots, being competed for by… 2500% as many hopefuls? 5000%? 10000%?

Any way you look at that figure, the soccer talent pool utterly dwarfs football’s. In no way shape or form are there enough top-tier soccer teams to balance that out.

And this doesn’t even get into the fact that soccer has an extremely well developed promotion system, so there is a constant upward pressure on players who are trying to hold their roster spots. A bubble player on a Premiere League team is standing on top of a pyramid with literally thousands of players gnawing at his ankles. Those players are spread all over the world in lower-tier leagues from which they can move up or down at the drop of a hat, resulting in a regular re-sorting of talent. Whereas and NFL third string QB is standing ahead of a couple of practice squad guys, maybe a dozen realistic free agents, and next year’s draft class. If he gets cut, he goes and plays in the CFL or XFL. If that doesn’t work out, his football career is over as there is nowhere else to develop which would have a realistic path to the NFL.

tl;dr - There are hundreds of millions more soccer players than football players, competing for only a few hundred extra roster spots at the top level. And their system of competition is far larger and more robust. It is much, much harder to become a top tier soccer player than a top tier football player.

extra nugget - maybe this is why so many irresponsible goofballs manage to stick in the NFL when they don’t seem like they could hold a regular job?