How Good Is World Cup Soccer, Really?

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


The internet is awash in soccer explainers for Americans, and naturally Vox has one of its own. What sets it apart is Joseph Stromberg’s acknowledgment of something sort of odd: “The World Cup is the pinnacle of soccer.”

That’s obviously true. But can anyone explain why? Soccer players spend the vast bulk of their time playing for clubs—Manchester United, Real Madrid, etc., all of which have fanatic followings. They spend only a tiny amount of time playing for their national team. That might not matter in an individual sport, but it surely matters in a team sport, where playing time together makes a big difference. So logic tells me that World Cup soccer, made up of teams that play together only occasionally and sporadically, ought be played at a lower level than club soccer. It’s basically second rate.

So here’s my question for serious soccer fans. Is World Cup play second rate? If not, why? If it’s actually just as good as top-level club play, how can that be possible given the limited playing time the players have together? Is it just a result of the relatively small number of World Cup teams, which means that only the top players play? Or what?

UPDATE: The consensus in comments is that, technically, World Cup play is indeed inferior to top-level club play. But of course, World Cup has a uniquely intense atmosphere and lots of nationalistic fervor, which makes it a great event even if the level of play isn’t quite at the top rank. Sounds reasonable to me.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate