Quote Originally Posted by mojo
I mean... I appreciate the heart of it, but isn't it really about which country has the luck of the draw to have a big population size to draw from that gives them more statistical shots at having an exceptional athlete... and then the added cream of which nation has the most money to create a quality program around those elite athletes that really supports them and helps them thrive..?
No. A few years ago, England (population 56,000,000) lost to Iceland (population 345,000). China plays football and they're really not very good at it. India and Indonesia suck too.

Having a big population helps, of course, but having the right infrastructure and management team matters more. It's all in the culture. Money is a factor, but only to a certain degree. And that's less the case with other sports like cricket, which India definitely do not suck at. Plenty of poor countries have had success at football, the obvious example being Brazil. Mexico are very good too.

America sucks at football (soccer) for a very important reason... it's not a cool sport to play, so your best athletes play gridiron, baseball, basketball or hockey. Soccer is not important to Americans. So that's why such a large and wealthy country like USA sucks at soccer. American culture is focussed on different sports.