When the United States men's national team prepares for its Round of 32 World Cup fixture against Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday, the nation should be celebrating a rare moment of widespread sporting unity. Flags are flying, venues are bustling, and casual spectators are tuning in. This mainstream engagement is precisely what American soccer has long sought. For years, advocates have desired a USMNT match to be viewed as a national event, rather than solely for dedicated enthusiasts who often lament that others simply do not grasp "the beautiful game." Indeed, America is now invested. Yet, it appears some traditional custodians of American soccer are less than pleased with this burgeoning interest.
This scenario bears a striking resemblance to the challenges currently faced by the WNBA concerning Caitlin Clark.
For an extended period, the WNBA actively sought greater national attention, media coverage, respect, and a larger base of casual sports fans. Caitlin Clark's arrival delivered all of these elements almost instantaneously. She drew in fans from her collegiate days at Iowa, attracted men and women, families, and even sports bettors. Her presence elevated the WNBA into a regular topic on prominent sports debate programs and news segments. She compelled individuals who had never before watched a WNBA regular-season game to give the league a chance, effectively bringing it into the mainstream.
However, this surge in popularity was met with resistance from many, including players, team owners, coaches, and media figures, who seemed to view this new influx of attention with skepticism. Sports commentator Emmanuel Acho, for instance, controversially stated this week that the WNBA "would be better off without Caitlin Clark." This sentiment stands out as one of the most perplexing reactions to Clark's significant influence on the league.
Such remarks echo some of the perspectives now emerging from certain corners of the soccer media. While the WNBA and the USMNT are distinct entities, they both seem to be exposing a similar instinct for gatekeeping among particular segments of their respective communities.
The Paradox of Desired Growth
Both the WNBA and some American soccer media members have long asserted their desire and deservingness of growth. However, this aspiration often comes with an unspoken caveat: they seek "approved growth"—growth originating from what they deem the "right" people, aligned with specific political views, and expressed using particular terminology.
The WNBA, it seems, desired new fans until Clark attracted those perceived as the "wrong" kind of fans. Now, American soccer appears to be confronting a similar dynamic as "unapproved" Americans engage with the World Cup.
The USMNT's initial knockout stage game should represent a momentous occasion for the sport in the nation. Not only has Team USA advanced to the second phase of soccer's premier event, but they are also favored to progress to the Round of 16, all while competing on home soil. This is precisely the type of event that can transform casual observers into devoted supporters. Consider the lasting impact of Team USA hockey's Olympic gold medal victory on the sport's popularity in the United States, which contributed to some of the highest television ratings in NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs history in 2026.
Despite this opportunity, many who have championed such growth for years now appear intent on regulating this moment.
Policing the Narrative and New Audiences
This regulatory impulse was evident in an article from The Guardian, which critiqued coverage of the World Cup, framing the dynamic between analysts Thierry Henry and Alexi Lalas as "the World Cup's most compelling battle." The piece characterized Henry as a "French aristocrat" and Lalas as an "all-American idiot," further labeling Lalas a "MAGA hack." It contended that a boisterous, patriotic, American-centric approach to tournament coverage clashed with the perceived essence of soccer in the United States. According to The Guardian, American soccer is a sport primarily for "migrants, urban liberals" and individuals "too scrawny" for other American athletic pursuits. This narrative suggests that the sport belongs exclusively to a specific demographic, not to casual fans, or those who embrace national pride.
Similar sentiments have been voiced elsewhere. USA Today columnist Nancy Armour wrote before the tournament that the United States had "already lost" the World Cup due to its "greed and hostility." A segment on MS NOW transformed a Department of Homeland Security post celebrating the USMNT into a discussion on immigration and nationalism. The Athletic questioned the intended audience for this World Cup.
This mirrors the attitude revealed in the WNBA during the surge of interest surrounding Caitlin Clark. The league yearned for relevance and to be discussed like a major American sport. Clark delivered exactly that, and suddenly, the discourse around major American sports proved to be loud, passionate, and often difficult to manage.
While it is undeniable that some individuals involved in the Clark discussions exhibited negative behavior—as is common in any large fanbase or around popular figures—the issue arose when many media personalities and figures associated with the league used these isolated instances to dismiss and discredit the entire new audience. Clark's new fans were often portrayed as not merely passionate, but "toxic."
American soccer is now undergoing a comparable trial. The USMNT's World Cup journey is attracting individuals who typically do not follow the sport. Some may not fully grasp the rules or recognize most of the players. Their primary interest is simply that the United States is competing, and they wish for the team to win. This level of engagement should be sufficient.
However, this broad, uncontrolled participation often unsettles gatekeepers, as it signifies a loss of their perceived authority. An article in The Independent, titled "Are you rooting against the US at the World Cup? You’re not alone," included the statement: "Sports have a way of fueling nationalistic passions, and I fully expect plenty of people who don’t care much about soccer to channel their patriotic sentiments into the tournament."
This illustrates the core point: the sport no longer belongs solely to those who supported it during its niche phase. The league is no longer exclusive to the limited number of fans who followed it before Clark's arrival. The national team is no longer the sole domain of those who claim to understand "soccer culture."
Mainstream popularity inherently grants "a seat at the table" to everyone. This concept of broad inclusion is frequently advocated in various other contexts. Major professional sports leagues like the NFL, college football, the NBA, or Major League Baseball do not dictate who their fans can be. If American soccer aspires to mainstream status, it cannot either. Nor can the WNBA.
The rise of Caitlin Clark should have been celebrated as a triumph for the WNBA, demonstrating a substantial audience for women's basketball when the right star emerges. She proved that people would watch, purchase merchandise, and care enough to engage in vigorous debate. American soccer should view the USMNT's current World Cup moment in the same light.
If casual fans are attending group stage matches, that is a positive development. If spectators are frequently chanting "USA!", that is also positive. If they refer to the sport as "soccer," that too is beneficial. These occurrences indicate that the sport has successfully reached beyond its established bubble. Is this not what everyone professed to desire?
