da dobrowin： Our writers debate whether the Copa America hosts have the kind of talent befitting a nation of their size

da bwin： FIFA president Gianni Infantino offered some insight into US soccer earlier this week, crticising MLS, lack of stars in the market and the nation's footballing federation for failing to invest in the game – and calling for a review of the way player development happens in America.

His comments made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, sparking conversations about the US soccer system, and the inherent barriers in the setup that theoretically could block potential talent from coming into the fore.

Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference, Infantino said, “The ‘Messi effect’ if we want to call it that way, you see (Lionel) Messi and Inter Miami filling stadiums, and not MLS stadiums but NFL stadiums," adding that “bringing in top talent would ultimately reap dividends at grass roots level in North America, encouraging young players to believe they could forge a career in soccer … They see it in basketball, American football, in baseball and ice hockey. But in soccer, it’s still kind of far away. You have to go to Europe”

But was he right? Does US soccer, especially on the men's side of the game, have a star? And how do the USMNT, soon to host the Copa America this summer and World Cup in 2026, go about identifying and growing the talent befitting of such a nation?

To answer those questions and more, we turned to the GOAL US editorial staff to break it all down…

Getty ImagesDoes American Soccer have a true star?

Ryan Tolmich:

The short answer and the long answer: both yes.

Christian Pulisic, by any measure, is a global star. He's arguably been the best player for one of the world's five most famous clubs, and he already has Champions League on his resume. There are maybe 20 players on the planet more marketable than the American, who has proven himself both on and off the field.

The long answer is that this isn't just about Pulisic. To say the U.S. lacks star power discounts the women's side, where the USWNT has carried the torch for years. Soccer is one big ecosystem in the US, and icons such as Mia Hamm have inspired boys and girls to kick a ball for years.

To say that American soccer doesn't have a star is unfair and, even if you do discount Pulisic, it's clear that help is on the way to add even more names to the highest levels of the game.

Jacob Schneider:

It would be unfair to say Pulisic is not a star. However, it's hard to envision him as "American Soccer's true star" simply because he has never had his moment. Every U.S. star has defining moment — Donovan vs Algeria, Bradley vs Mexico, Dempsey vs Ghana… we're still waiting on Christian to have his true moment on the international stage.

Tom Hindle:

It all depends on how you define “star.” If stardom is about kit sales, marketability, and a player for fans to get behind, then surely they do in Pulisic. He was the one good player on a bad US team for a while, and has grown with it. I think he’s also done enough for his country – World Cup goal, Gold Cup winning PK – to endear himself to supporters. He also – and I can’t define this exactly – feels quite American.

But if stardom is about stratospheric talent, and having a footballer who can win you any game on any day, then I’m not sure the US is there yet. Pulisic is a very good winger for a pretty good Milan team, and a difference-maker for a good USMNT. That’s probably not stardom in the eyes of the world.

If we're talking the women's game, though, that's a different story… The USWNT are world class at pretty much every position.

AdvertisementGettyDoes MLS need to keep players for soccer to grow?

RT:

This has long been a topic of discussion, particularly because of MLS commissioner Don Garber's "league of choice" statements. In recent years, though, MLS has settled into its place in the global ecosystem.

The reality is that there is precisely one league that keeps hold of its best players: the Premier League. Every other club in the world, save for maybe four or five, is always preparing to be raided by England's top flight. There's a pecking order, but the reality is that the highest levels are more top-heavy than ever.

Aside from that, several of the world's best national teams thrive without a "top" league. Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, Portugal – they all are regularly raided by the "Big Five" and all do just fine on the international stage.

MLS is often criticized for exporting American players, but the reality is that doing so is still the best way for the USMNT to succeed. The aim of many kids is to play in the Champions League under those bright lights, and seeing stars like Pulisic doing that will do just as much if not more than seeing them stay at home and play every weekend.

JS:

Absolutely not. Being a league where young players want to come as a stepping stone to bigger and better things is not inherently bad. MLS is exactly where it should be in terms of growth, and if anything, should be working toward sending more and more players to Europe.

TH:

Yes, and there is so much talent here. Zoom out, and American soccer’s whole story is its pining for legitimacy on a global scale. MLS is making strides in that sense, but it’s still a case of a setup that is “better than you might expect” and not “top level competition.” I see the argument about kids wanting to play in Europe, but MLS isn't good enough – yet – to allow that happen consistently. Get the best talent to stay home, your league gets better, your national team grows with it. The US doesn't have the pedigree to rely so heavily on other countries to pinch their best players. These things take time.

Getty ImagesIs the U.S. soccer held to unfair standards by outside forces?

RT:

Absolutely, and it's clear to see why: the money.

Every stakeholder in soccer looks at the U.S. market and sees dollar signs, and each has their own idea of how to earn more. Leagues want to hold in-season matches stateside. Federations book friendlies regularly. Clubs go on preseason tours while opening U.S. academies. FIFA has given the U.S. tournament after tournament to help grow the game.

Each party has its own ideas, but few are in the best interest of the American game itself. It's all a gold rush to take advantage of a growing market. And, because of that, everyone will have an opinion of what the U.S. could do better.

La Liga playing games stateside wouldn't help grown U.S. soccer; it would help La Liga. Clubs such as Barcelona place academies in the U.S. to mine American talent, not as some form of charity to help build up the U.S.

Viewed through that lens, it's clear that most of the outside criticisms are just that — criticism, not actual ideas to build upon.

JS:

Absolutely yes, hands down, yes. Today, for example, there was a post from a European journalist noting that Cavan Sullivan – after signing his landmark MLS Homegrown deal – looks like a player who will be a "party boy" and will end up in a second-division in 10 years time. You don't see that discourse happening around the next European star from Germany, Spain, England or France.

Because he's American, there's an expectation by many that he'll follow in the footsteps of some failed athletes from other sports who have gone down such routes — Johnny Manziel, for example. American soccer is held to unfair standards from players, to managers such as Jesse Marsch and Gregg Berhalter, to the way it celebrates its own soccer culture. Marsch and Berhalter are looked upon as automatic failures the moment anything goes south, and they're critiqued at a level that English managers are not. It's so silly.

By the way, it's called .

TH:

Sure, but I think they play their own part in it. American soccer is a broken system in many ways, with pay to play models affecting the amount of talent that the country develops. Meanwhile, the lack of investment in MLS, and the lack of a proper grassroots structure for development simply has the nation lagging behind its expectations. You can't ignore the fact that the US is lacking in the infrastructure to become a truly great footballing nation.

Yes, the rest of the world is always looking for a reason to “stick it” to the US in some way. Is that fair to the 23 people on the national teams’ rosters, the managers abroad or the thousands of kids getting involved in the game? No. But that's the way it is.

Getty ImagesHow can the U.S. create more stars?

RT:

It's simple: keep investing.

Time, money, effort – they all need to be invested. Things don't just need to be done; they need to be done the right way. The floodgates are just starting to open with this generation of American stars, but more investment is needed to drive the evolution.

The continued growth of MLS academies has been massive, but they can only cover so much ground. A thriving lower league helps. So would be a youth scene that chases development over money. And then there's the college system, a safety net to help the late bloomers.

The simple answer is to stay the course and keep building. The U.S. has started to see the fruits of last decade's labor. Continued investment and growth could pay dividends for decades to come.

JS:

U.S. Soccer is like a pay-to-win video game. The more money you toss in it, the better odds you have of getting some sort of advantage. U.S. Soccer lacks access, from minority communities to metropolitan cities. There is such limited access. The game is too expensive, academies are too expensive, coaching badges are unreasonably hard to get — those all turn so much talent away.

We lack access. We overcharge. We aren't inclusive. It's a flawed system, to put it the kindest way possible.

TH:

Move away from a broken system that blocks the kids from playing football. In pretty much every GOOD footballing nation, their country’s representatives come from all walks of life, socioeconomic and culturally, and they remove barriers for those who can kick a ball at a decent level. US soccer must get everyone involved … and then that player pool might just have a few gems to work with.