The Volokh Conspiracy

In the wake of the World Cup soccer defeat of the U.S. Men's National Team (USMNT), analysts have  been wondering what the U.S. can do better to improve its talent in international competitions. In the 4-1 defeat to Belgium, it seemed apparent that other countries (often European countries) have done a better job of developing a talent pipeline for men's soccer than the U.S. Why hasn't the U.S. developed better men's talent?

As an avid fan of the U.S. men's (and women's) national soccer teams, I have been following the debate closely. Commonly identified culprits include: America's "pay to play" system of youth soccer, diversion of some of America's best athletes to other sports, and the alleged lack of a true American soccer "culture."

But on Friday, Scott Yenor of the Heritage Foundation tried to add a new suspect to the list. He offered his view that America's Title IX regime was "a factor behind the underperformance of U.S. men's soccer on the international stage." I'm not sure whether his article was intended mainly to provoke. But the article is so disassociated from the current realities surrounding soccer talent development that a brief response may be warranted.

As Yenor tells the tale, Title IX's prohibition of sex-based discrimination in college sports programs has created "perverse incentives." According to Yenor, Title IX forces universities with (American) football teams to balance things out by padding the rosters of their women's teams in other sports—and, in some cases, cutting men's soccer teams. Yenor displays statistics showing that soccer participation by sex in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I programs has changed over time, so that women now outnumber men.

According to Yenor, these statistics show that, while "America's women's soccer has a world-class pipeline … Title IX prevents men's soccer from building one." Yenor provocatively concludes that "[o]nly when America drops its sports sex-quota system will the American men stop being humiliated by Belgium."

In my view, Yenor's argument betrays a lack of any clear understanding of how talent pipelines of men in international soccer work. Because he does not seriously engage with the real debate over how to improve the USMNT, his policy recommendation misses the mark.

Starting with his graph, his timeline shows little connection to the World Cup performances by America's men's (and women's) national teams. Title IX became effective in the mid-1970s. The men's team did not qualify to participate in any World Cups for many years both before and after. Focusing on the modern era, the U.S. men did not qualify to play between 1954 and 1986. The U.S. men did qualify in 1990—more than a decade after Title IX went into effect—and reached the Round of 16 at the next opportunity, in 1994. In 2002, the USMNT reached the quarterfinals.  In its last four appearances—in 2010, 2014, 2022, and 2026—the men played consistently, reached the Round of 16 each time … but progressed no further.

To be sure, Title IX's enactment no doubt helped propel the U.S. women to success. They won the first women's World Cup in 1991. They were also champions in 1999, 2015, and 2019. But in its most recent appearance, in 2023, the U.S. Women's National Team (USWNT) disappointingly only reached the Round of 16. This trendline—consistent, long-standing success followed by a sharp drop in the most recent tournament—bears little relation to the escalating college participation over decades by women that Yenor depicts.

The core problem with Yenor's argument is its focus on the very backend of the talent pipeline—players entering college soccer programs. Read More