TwoTankAmin said:
The name world series originated at a time when baseball was pretty much an American only sport. Even today with players coming from all over the world, only in the USA are truly great teams possible, Other countries simply do not have a system in place to develop their own leagues at the same level of play.
Its the reverse of why male soccer/football teams from the USA still cannot compete on the international front. The sport is not popular enough here to allow for the assembling of a high caliber pro team. Big leagues require big money to work.
I would disagree on the latter point, TTA. The USA has a number of players who play, or have until recently played, in the bigger European leagues. I certainly think that if Tim Howard were English, he would have been picked for our squad ahead of both Ben Foster and Fraser Forster. Clint Dempsey is another who would grace any of the "grandee" nations. The you have the next generation such as Julian Green from Bayern Munich, who's a very exciting player.
Domestically, the MLS is increasing in stature and reputation all the time, the new New York City team has backing from the UAE, and will take the MLS to the next level, I believe. They have already signed a major talent in David Villa, and it looks like Frank Lampard will be there too - players of this stature, as well as others such as Thierry Henry and Jermaine (spit on his name) Defoe, will help to raise the talent level of US youngsters. So long as the MLS does not go too foreigner-centric, as the Premier League has done over here, all will be well.
Then if a certain Mr Beckham succeeds in obtaining a MLS franchise, the popularity of the sport will be increased, meaning that soccer won't just be something you pick your 10-year-old daughter up from, to quote John Oliver (another English import!).
I truly believe that the USA will have a realistic shot at winning the World Cup within the next 20 years.