- Big organizations
- The household
- The team
This refers to the culture driven by large scale organizations. The most obvious are state governments.
They dominate the rhetoric, implement policy, and execute the law.
Neglecting the minority, these things combined funnel the worldviews and value systems of an entire people.
On a smaller scale, but still macro-level, are the soccer federations (ie US Soccer).
They too dominate the rhetoric, implement and execute policy of an entire nation.
First, and most powerful, is the culture of the household. If we’re talking about player development, parents dominate the rhetoric and most influence the value systems of their kids.
Second, and least powerful, is the culture of the soccer team. The coach dominates the rhetoric and can have some influence in the thoughts of his players.
And unless a coach establishes real authority and is charismatic, his cultural influence is negligible.
Having all three aligned, gives us harmony. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the products of this harmony are globally the best. It just means the products are maximized for that particular worldview/culture.
There are strengths that come from this homogeneity in culture, but there are weaknesses as well.
And of course the same is true of a heterogeneous culture.
Strengths of homogeneity
Who’s going to beat England playing 50/50, hard working, physical, vertical soccer?
Who’s going to beat Brazil trying to play flashy, samba style futbol?
Who’s going to beat Spain trying to play tiki-taka?
Those countries have their macro & micro cultures well aligned. There is harmony.
What about heterogeneity … the ‘melting pot’?
Here a competition between highly variant ideas is most likely to exist. But if the best idea is to take hold and win in a relatively short period of time, we must minimize protectionist policies.
A problem in the US, is that our macro culture is not aligned with countries who are the best in football. (Don’t lose track of what we’re talking about, this has nothing to do with popularity of the sport).
Our country’s rhetoric, policies, and hence general worldview is most like England.
The general American household follows suit.
And the general American coach as well.
So while our population has great cultural variety, those in control of our soccer systems and infrastructure do not. They are all essentially cut from the same mold, and protect each other from would-be challengers.
There is protectionism in the soccer market.
An open market where the best ideology, and hence product, wins, is the last thing they want. And with that policy, the strength of our heterogeneity (the proverbial melting-pot) is held at bay.