USA are no way as good as the World Cup competition suggests, just like many smaller footballing nations, such as Senegal, South Korea, since they did well, due to a few factors:
1. Other teams playing badly
2. A certain element of luck (but all teams need it)
3. The world cup venue was in a unfamiliar location (Korea/Japan), neither Europe or the Americas, and as past tournaments have suggested, most European teams are not extremely well-adapted to the weather conditions (e.g. too hot...) and the South American teams usually do not do very well, travelling outside their own countries. This can be seen by the many great home records for all the nations, like even Peru can be quite strong plaing at home, because of the altitude! So, it is upto the smaller teams to take advantage of the slightly unfamiliar conditions that might put quite a few 'bigger' footballing teams off, and thus led to some shocks in the World Cup.
But having said that, you CANNOT be a poor side and reach the quarter or even semi finals of the World Cup. But some teams are overrated, if you only take the performances from the World Cup.
And a perfect example is: Is Netherlands worst than Saudi Arabia?
So, you CANNOT take the World Cup performances as the ONLY measurement of how good a team is.
And back to FIFA, I think EA got it right in choosing only the MLS, and not the other leagues, because MLS is the most advertised leagues in the whole North & South America. What I mean by that is MLS has the largest buying population. Also, the games can sell at a much higher price in the US than in let's say Mexico. And you cannot expect that many ppl in the US to buy the game if MLS isn't in it. And you have to remember EA don't only want to target football fanatics, like you and me, they want ppl who are beginners at the sport to play the game, and begin to like it.
It's all down to marketing strategy.
And even if EA put the Argentine league in, would it be as good as the stuff that Soccer Access are doing? Definitely not. They would probably make it as fashionable as the Swiss league, knowing EA.
1. Other teams playing badly
2. A certain element of luck (but all teams need it)
3. The world cup venue was in a unfamiliar location (Korea/Japan), neither Europe or the Americas, and as past tournaments have suggested, most European teams are not extremely well-adapted to the weather conditions (e.g. too hot...) and the South American teams usually do not do very well, travelling outside their own countries. This can be seen by the many great home records for all the nations, like even Peru can be quite strong plaing at home, because of the altitude! So, it is upto the smaller teams to take advantage of the slightly unfamiliar conditions that might put quite a few 'bigger' footballing teams off, and thus led to some shocks in the World Cup.
But having said that, you CANNOT be a poor side and reach the quarter or even semi finals of the World Cup. But some teams are overrated, if you only take the performances from the World Cup.
And a perfect example is: Is Netherlands worst than Saudi Arabia?
So, you CANNOT take the World Cup performances as the ONLY measurement of how good a team is.
And back to FIFA, I think EA got it right in choosing only the MLS, and not the other leagues, because MLS is the most advertised leagues in the whole North & South America. What I mean by that is MLS has the largest buying population. Also, the games can sell at a much higher price in the US than in let's say Mexico. And you cannot expect that many ppl in the US to buy the game if MLS isn't in it. And you have to remember EA don't only want to target football fanatics, like you and me, they want ppl who are beginners at the sport to play the game, and begin to like it.
It's all down to marketing strategy.
And even if EA put the Argentine league in, would it be as good as the stuff that Soccer Access are doing? Definitely not. They would probably make it as fashionable as the Swiss league, knowing EA.
