What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What Will It Take For The US To Be Competitive In World Cup? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I know we hit on some of this in the "why soccer will never be big" thread. But I want to ask it from a different angle. 

Disclaimer. Personally, I'm mostly agnostic on Soccer. I live in the South where High School and SEC college football is king. But I am NOT anti soccer. 

AND, I recognize how hugely popular it is worldwide. And how popular it is in the US. It may not be my thing, but I'm not the subject here. 

My question is this: What will it take, and what has to change for the US to be competitive on the world stage? And I guess specifically, I mean, what will it take for the US to be competitive in the World Cup?

Anecdotally, I see this in my area and among my friends:

1. Soccer is extremely popular among youth. Obviously it draws the little kids as it's an easy team sport to play for little ones. But I see a ton of interest in older kids too. So I don't buy the "it's only for toddlers" idea.

2. We get good athletes. I understand the idea that our best athletes go to Football / Basketball / Baseball. But I see differently. I have two good friends locally who's sons were the best athletes in our High School. (Pretty large public high school with 2,000 students). They both played soccer for the High School team. And played all through middle and high school on club teams. Basketball and Baseball have AAU teams for kids. Football has QB camps and such. It's not like our Football / Basketball / Baseball kids are whisked away as 10 year olds to live and train in a special facility. And we excel in those sports worldwide. 

3. We have tons of people. I know it's not a numbers game, lest China would win everything. But numbers do matter. The fact Croatia can dominate at the World Level with a population equal to Kentucky is astounding. 

4. We have the resources. Soccer obviously doesn't need a ton of money for equipment and such. But if money matters, we have lots of it for facilities and coaching and development. 

5. We want to win. Good or bad, Americans are competitive. It's not like we have some lackadaisical fan base that doesn't care. I have to think we rank at least normal on the "want to win" scale. I have to think given how much we love Soccer already, there's a huge desire to want to excel at the World Cup.

So with all that - why can't we field a competitive team?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Define competitive (as in the US is cometitive). What is your success scenario?  

Currently you compete.

You do not qualify for the World Cup every time, but lately it's been more often.

#3 - For the record: Croatia isn't dominating anything. They came out of the final 16 with the narrowest win possible and repeated that among the last eight. They are a very good team that has come together at the right time. This is ridiculously important, particularly for small countries like Croatia, or Belgium for that matter.

As for why your team doesn't live up to your standards in #5 - your domestic league is not very good. Also US the players that go abroad to the higher quality leagues seem rather ho-hum on international level. So my suggestion would be to retain talent better, ensure MLS quality of play improves with better talent, and then a good dose of hope for a golden generation. 

 
msommer said:
Define competitive (as in the US is cometitive). What is your success scenario?  

Currently you compete.

You do not qualify for the World Cup every time, but lately it's been more often.

#3 - For the record: Croatia isn't dominating anything. They came out of the final 16 with the narrowest win possible and repeated that among the last eight. They are a very good team that has come together at the right time. This is ridiculously important, particularly for small countries like Croatia, or Belgium for that matter.

As for why your team doesn't live up to your standards in #5 - your domestic league is not very good. Also US the players that go abroad to the higher quality leagues seem rather ho-hum on international level. So my suggestion would be to retain talent better, ensure MLS quality of play improves with better talent, and then a good dose of hope for a golden generation. 
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's a good point on definition. I'd define "competitive" as consistently making the World Cup field and consistently having a better than average chance of making it to the Final 16. 

In my (granted, not knowledgeable) eyes, it doesn't feel like we're competitive at all right now. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And here's a dumb question. For World Cup, teams are organized by the player's home country right? 

So even if we did create a lot of great players that went overseas to play, would they compete in the World Cup for the US?

 
first off, soccer is it in europe.  there is no baseball... for the most part, in many countries, basketball and hockey don’t exist.  no american football.  soccer fields all over.  here, money talks.  our best athletes know they can get paid like crazy in our 4 majors.  to make a broad statement backed by no facts, our best athletes are african americans.  they just are not playing soccer in the inner cities.  it’s cultural here, our best athletes go different routes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
And here's a dumb question. For World Cup, teams are organized by the player's home country right? 

So even if we did create a lot of great players that went overseas to play, would they compete in the World Cup for the US?
Click to expand...
Teams are organized by nationality. If you play an international as an adult you become ocked to the team you play for at that time, even if you later change nationality.

Somehow Mario Fernandes of Russia has gotten an exemption as he played one friendly for Brazil but not appear for Russia (and missed his penalty last night, after scoring the equalizing goal that sent the game to penalty kicks in the first place)

 
We’ve been in every World Cup going back to 1990 before this one. That’s a really long streak. We got out of the group stage in both 2010 and 12. Made the final 8 in 2002. So I would argue we’ve been more than competitive. 

Now as for what would it take to ascend to that next level, the MLS has to get about 50x better than it is, or we have to get players who can get minutes for quality Euro clubs, which seems extremely unlikely to me. 

 
Chemical X said:
first off, soccer is it in europe.  there is no baseball... for the most part, in many countries, basketball and hockey don’t exist.  no american football.  soccer fields all over.  here, money talks.  our best athletes know they can get paid like crazy in our 4 majors.  to make a broad statement backed by no facts, our best athletes are african americans.  they just are not playing soccer in the inner cities.  it’s cultural here, our best athletes go different routes.
Click to expand...
There are so many other sports not played much in the US instead, e.g. handball, water polo, badminton. 

You might have an argument if you said - by far the best paid professional sport for teams in Europe is soccer. But I believe that is the same in Africa, and East Asia as well (cricket being likely better paying in India/sub continent)

 
Capella said:
We’ve been in every World Cup going back to 1990 before this one. That’s a really long streak. We got out of the group stage in both 2010 and 12. Made the final 8 in 2002. So I would argue we’ve been more than competitive. 

Now as for what would it take to ascend to that next level, the MLS has to get about 50x better than it is, or we have to get players who can get minutes for quality Euro clubs, which seems extremely unlikely to me. 
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe "next level" is more what I mean. Would that be how you'd classify consistently being in the Top 15 in the world?

 
Joe Bryant said:
Yes, maybe "next level" is more what I mean. Would that be how you'd classify consistently being in the Top 15 in the world?
Click to expand...
That is a fair judgement.

Top 15 would be a nice goal.  We are more in the 25 to 30 range right now.

MLS has progressed significantly in the past 5 years (try and ignore the people who don't follow the league as their hot takes are less than knowledgeable IMO). 

But this stuff takes time and it is not like the US is the only country that is trying to improve, every country is doing the same.   We are just starting to see the front end of the players who have been placed into the MLS academies (basically skipping college and high school soccer entirely).   This is how every country produces players so we are decades behind in most cases so patience is going to be very much needed.

The signs are there for improvement, but any one expecting massive jumps and instant results is going to be very disappointed.

We just need to let MLS continue on its massive growth profile and hope we continue to see plenty of young American's being seeded in Europe like we have now.  We need both legs to work for long term success.

 
Joe Bryant said:
And here's a dumb question. For World Cup, teams are organized by the player's home country right? 

So even if we did create a lot of great players that went overseas to play, would they compete in the World Cup for the US?
Click to expand...
Where you play for your club team has no relation to where you play for your country.

Playing for your country is based on citizenship only (every country has their own rules for that).  There are a ton of players who are eligible for many different countries which is why so many international teams have players who are not born in that country. 

We have countries poaching our young US players all the time, just as we also look abroad for American ties.  Just this week Croatia has invited one of good young players who was born and bred in Chicago to one of their youth camps.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Yes, maybe "next level" is more what I mean. Would that be how you'd classify consistently being in the Top 15 in the world?
Click to expand...
I don't think the discussion should get bogged down in the definition of "competitive." I think we all know what the question is, and its a good one that has been debated as long as I've been following US Soccer - over 30 years.  Essentially, given our resources, why aren't we better? Why can't we compete on the level of countries with substantially fewer resources?  Regardless of whether one believes US Soccer is "competitive," the fact is that missing this World Cup was a monumental failure, hard to overstate.

There are a dozen or more factors that one can legitimately point to in answering this question.  There are hundreds of thousands of pages on the internet devoted to finding the answer over the past few decades. Some of the answers are clearly false (such as, "our best athletes don't play soccer!") but most have some kernel of truth to them.  For me, probably the biggest issue by far is that our youth soccer system, as impressive as it may be, is dedicated to getting the most kids playing and paying, while not being focused on developing quality players.  The great majority of these kids are coached by volunteer parents and the focus from a very young age is on getting the fastest, strongest kids out there to score goals and win games. There might be 25,000 15 year old boys playing club soccer in the Chicago area for example, but very few of them have been exposed to learning proper technique and very few could compete with someone properly trained in Europe or S. America, regardless of how fast or strong they are.

The second issue is the association of sports and education, and the high cost of both - something that is uniquely American.  If kids are extremely successful in soccer, the goal is a scholarship at a university, not being successful on a club.  These two divergent goals contrast with each other to the detriment of player development.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
For me, probably the biggest issue by far is that our youth soccer system, as impressive as it may be, is dedicated to getting the most kids playing and paying, while not being focused on developing quality players.  The great majority of these kids are coached by volunteer parents and the focus from a very young age is on getting the fastest, strongest kids out there to score goals and win games. There might be 25,000 15 year old boys playing club soccer in the Chicago area for example, but very few of them have been exposed to learning proper technique and very few could compete with someone properly trained in Europe or S. America, regardless of how fast or strong they are.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
It would have to over take at least one of football, baseball, basketball or hockey in terms of popularity. Which I don't see happening. After youth league most just don't see to be inclined to stick with it and move on to other sports in high school and college. It will always be a successful youth sport due to easy accessibility and minimal equipment needed but I don't see it developing significantly at the higher levels.

 
sports_fan said:
It would have to over take at least one of football, baseball, basketball or hockey in terms of popularity. 
Click to expand...
I have seen well laid out, fact based arguments, that soccer is already more popular than hockey (sport vs sport, not league vs league).  I think people who don't follow this stuff really don't have a grasp on how big soccer is with our massive(and still growing) Latino population in the country.  

Whether it is has past it or not, it is likely very close either way.   But it still falls dramatically behind the other 3.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired said:
I have seen well laid out, fact based arguments, that soccer is already more popular than hockey (sport vs sport, not league vs league).

Whether it is has past it or not, it is likely very close either way.   But it still falls dramatically behind the other 3.   
Click to expand...
That's what it feels to me like. And to be fair, I live in Tennessee where Predator bandwagon fans aside, Hockey isn't something played a lot. It feels to me like soccer is way more popular than hockey. 

I'm sure it's naive, and it's my arrogance showing, but it feels like we ought to be as competitive in soccer as we are hockey. 

 
@CletiusMaximus really nailed the "issue" imo.  Its not about participation rates, or even the success of MLS - its about the quality of training kids are getting at an early age.

We have more than enough participants, and MLS is good enough (and established enough).  Soccer does not need to "grow" in the traditional sense of becoming more popular than Baseball, football, etc.

What we lack, relative to other "competitive" countries is the infrastructure to really train players on skills and tactics.  I am not talking about that weekly practice where the youth kids run around a bit.  I am talking about a lack of daily training on ball control skills, on passing, on trapping, on shooting, on defending.  

Soccer is a lot more intricate than most people assume.  The physical skills necessary happen over thousand of hours honing those specific skills.  The tactics of knowing how and when to use those skill happens over thousands of hours training.  We have a relatively few kids who get that level of coaching/training compared to most other "competitive" countries.

Certainly a viable MLS helps - and I think MLS has shown to be a viable league, both in terms of quality and fan support.  That kind of league sparks the interest in young players wanting to be good enough to reach that level - and that, in turn, should provide the impetus of more (and better) youth coaching - focused on skills as much or more than athleticism.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
The second issue is the association of sports and education, and the high cost of both - something that is uniquely American.  If kids are extremely successful in soccer, the goal is a scholarship at a university, not being successful on a club.  These two divergent goals contrast with each other to the detriment of player development.




1




1
Click to expand...
Thanks @CletiusMaximus    Can you unpack that more? I ask because it seems like a ton of basketball and football high school kids are totally focused on the NBA and NFL. More than college. Especially the NBA where players get there faster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I'm sure it's naive, and it's my arrogance showing, but it feels like we ought to be as competitive in soccer as we are hockey. 
Click to expand...
We all want to be more competitive.  But it is also worth acknowledging that in soccer you have 200+ countries who play, with ~75 of them being really good.   The numbers in hockey are obviously significantly smaller making it a little easier to be competative.

This is similar to why US Women are good in soccer.  We started playing pretty much before anyone else, and the pool of teams is so much smaller.  The men face the opposite problem, we started later than everyone else (taking it seriously that is) and the pool of countries to compete against is massive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus said:
The second issue is the association of sports and education, and the high cost of both - something that is uniquely American.  If kids are extremely successful in soccer, the goal is a scholarship at a university, not being successful on a club.  These two divergent goals contrast with each other to the detriment of player development.
Click to expand...
This is definitely a factor. 

 
msommer said:
This is definitely a factor. 
Click to expand...
and it is one that I personally don't see an answer to.  

American's are programmed to want their kids to go to college.  Even with the upper echelon of young players who get into MLS academies, the end goal always seems to be the scholarship to college.

We have a few who are willing to give it a go on their own in Europe but my god that is a tough road as a teenager.  It broke Landon entirely, and Pulisic has said numerous times he never would have made it if his dad did not move with him.

And those are our two best players ever, much less the kids who try it at a lower talent level.

One thing that looks promising is the number of young players we are seeding in German.  The more we seed, the more they can help the next set of players who want to go over.  Just having some one to talk to would be beneficial to a young kid in those ultra competitive environments. 

 
Native said:
Great another soccer thread  :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Joking aside, there are blueprints for this. The US needs to find the right one based on our unique resources and limitations.

Take Belgium for example. This incredible article describes how the Belgian Soccer Federation methodically transformed the country's soccer philosophy, style of play, scouting evaluation, and coaching training. It took 15 years, but a small country that was previously known for cynical, defensive football (and missed the 2006 and 2010 world cups) is now on the brink of the World Cup finals with many of the most talented players in the world.

But could something similar work in the US? I think many of us debate that everyday. If you're interested, the USMNT is about to announce a new US National coach in the next few weeks. This announcement comes on the heels of announcing a new general manager of US soccer earlier in the summer. So the building blocks are being built right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired said:
and it is one that I personally don't see an answer to.  

American's are programmed to want their kids to go to college.  Even with the upper echelon of young players who get into MLS academies, the end goal always seems to be the scholarship to college.
Click to expand...
I think this is - partially - a cultural difference.

In many parts of the world, soccer is very much a blue-collar, poor-man's sport.  (using those terms loosely).  In the US, a disproportionate amount of support seems to come from middle-class suburbia, rather than the proverbial ghettos.*

So, when you look at the backgrounds of kids playing, many of those kids come from houses where both parents are college graduates, and have the same expectation for their kids.  I suspect that if you compared that to Basketball, Football, and even Baseball, you would find a lower percentage of college-graduate parents, and thus lower expectations of getting a college degree.

*This is not true in all areas - but I think is true in most areas. 

 
Native said:
Joking aside, there are blueprints for this. The US needs to find the right one based on our unique resources and limitations.

Take Belgium for example. This incredible article describes how the Belgian Soccer Federation methodically transformed the country's soccer philosophy, style of play, scouting evaluation, and coaching training. It took 15 years, but a small country that was previously known for cynical, defensive football (and missed the 2006 and 2010 world cups) is now on the brink of the World Cup finals with many of the most talented players in the world.

But could something similar work in the US? I think many of us debate that everyday. If you're interested, the USMNT is about to announce a new US National coach in the next few weeks. This announcement comes on the heels of announcing a new general manager of US soccer earlier in the summer. So the building blocks are being built right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were in charge. Look to see how other countries have done it. Granted, there are things about America that make it unique and not necessarily easily transferable but I'd start there. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
. Granted, there are things about America that make it unique and not necessarily easily transferable but I'd start there. 
Click to expand...
One thing that many assume would be a help to us instead of a hindrance is our massive size.

Being a highly populated country with a large land mass may go against implementing changes on a wide scale.

What do China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all have in common?  They are among-st the most populated countries in the world and they all are terrible at the sport.

Only Brazil has bucked this trend.  Other hugely populated countries like US, Nigeria and Russia are all decent playing countries but none would be considered top playing countries.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think this is - partially - a cultural difference.

In many parts of the world, soccer is very much a blue-collar, poor-man's sport.  (using those terms loosely).  In the US, a disproportionate amount of support seems to come from middle-class suburbia, rather than the proverbial ghettos.*

So, when you look at the backgrounds of kids playing, many of those kids come from houses where both parents are college graduates, and have the same expectation for their kids.  I suspect that if you compared that to Basketball, Football, and even Baseball, you would find a lower percentage of college-graduate parents, and thus lower expectations of getting a college degree.

*This is not true in all areas - but I think is true in most areas. 
Click to expand...
I think this makes sense. It's not as upper income as something like lacrosse. But does feel like it's often a suburban thing.

But at the same time, I'd argue a lot of popularity is with urban kids in my experience. For some of the same reasons it's popular worldwide. One being low cost to play. Get a ball and empty lot and go at it. In Knoxville, the nicest soccer facility in town is operated by an organization focused on urban kids with a fair number of them first generation immigrant or refugee kids. So i see the push from both sides of the economic spectrum. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
NewlyRetired said:
One thing that many assume would be a help to us instead of a hindrance is our massive size.

Being a highly populated country with a large land mass may go against implementing changes on a wide scale.

What do China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all have in common?  They are among-st the most populated countries in the world and they all are terrible at the sport.

Only Brazil has bucked this trend.  Other hugely populated countries like US, Nigeria and Russia are all decent playing countries but none would be considered top playing countries.
Click to expand...
That's really interesting. I wonder why?

 
Joe Bryant said:
But at the same time, I'd argue a lot of popularity is with urban kids in my experience. For some of the same reasons it's popular worldwide. One being low cost to play. Get a ball and empty lot and go at it. In Knoxville, the nicest soccer facility in town is operated by an organization focused on urban kids with a fair number of them first generation immigrant or refugee kids. So i see the push from both sides of the economic spectrum. 
Click to expand...
Some of the Atlanta guys could tell you more but the massive popularity of Atlanta United seems to be pushing down into the African American neighborhoods as well.  

 
For the argument the US is too focused on kids getting an athletic scholarship to go to college, I ask "why is that a negative"?

Are you saying the goal should be going pro with no thought of college? 

Is that how other countries do it? If so, what do they do with all their kids that fail to make it pro? Which are the vast majority. 

 
[scooter] said:
The problem is that American soccer is oriented towards the upper class.

Our "best players" are really "the best players whose parents had enough money to pay for soccer camps and club teams for 15 years".
Click to expand...
This is changing (granted it is at a tectonic like pace but it is happening). The best of the best players who get into the academies are almost all fully funded.

It should be said though, that is too small a player pool (especially when predicting who will become the best player when the are 14 years old is littered with variables)

 
[scooter] said:
The problem is that American soccer is oriented towards the upper class.

Our "best players" are really "the best players whose parents had enough money to pay for soccer camps and club teams for 15 years".
Click to expand...
But Baseball / Basketball / Football all have the same problem. Baseball and Basketball do a ton of club and travel teams. And football has lots of camps. We seem to be able to draw kids even with those barriers. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the argument the US is too focused on kids getting an athletic scholarship to go to college, I ask "why is that a negative"?

Are you saying the goal should be going pro with no thought of college? 

Is that how other countries do it? If so, what do they do with all their kids that fail to make it pro? Which are the vast majority. 
Click to expand...
You are correct in that the vast majority don't make it.

Yes, the goal has to be to go pro before college (which is what is now happening in the US).   The percentage of players world wide who went to college is EXTREMELY small.

College does not provide any where near the development environment needed to produce consistent top level players.  You are basically flushing 4 years of the most important years of development down the drain.

 
NewlyRetired said:
You are correct in that the vast majority don't make it.

Yes, the goal has to be to go pro before college (which is what is now happening in the US).   The percentage of players world wide who went to college is EXTREMELY small.

College does not provide any where near the development environment needed to produce consistent top level players.  You are basically flushing 4 years of the most important years of development down the drain.
Click to expand...
So is it a thing where kids are encouraged to go pro right out of high school instead of going to college? Or even well before high school?

The vast majority won't make it. It sounds like these kids are groomed from pre teens for being pro. Is it a problem that the majority find themselves at 20 years old and not having made it and have to choose another path? 

 
Joe Bryant said:
[scooter] said:
The problem is that American soccer is oriented towards the upper class.

Our "best players" are really "the best players whose parents had enough money to pay for soccer camps and club teams for 15 years".
Click to expand...
But Baseball / Basketball / Football all have the same problem. Baseball and Basketball do a ton of club and travel teams. And football has lots of camps. We seem to be able to draw kids even with those barriers. 
Click to expand...
The difference with basketball is that travel teams have sponsors that subsidize the players. If you display elite basketball talent at age 10, you and your family will never have to pay to play for the next 8 years. That won't happen with soccer until soccer reaches a level of popularity where sponsors, agents and recruiting become a reality.

Football is different because no other countries play it. We have no idea what would have happened if other countries had started playing football 100 years ago.

You're right about baseball, though. But then again, major league baseball is 28% Latino.

 
Joe Bryant said:
So is it a thing where kids are encouraged to go pro right out of high school instead of going to college? Or even well before high school?
Click to expand...
The path for the best players will always be through the academies. The kids still go to high school but the never play soccer for their high school.

And we also have a couple of MLS teams now, Philly and Salt Lake which have built their own high schools to house their own academy players. 

Click on this link for a quick idea of what I am talking about

https://www.yscacademy.com/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
For the argument the US is too focused on kids getting an athletic scholarship to go to college, I ask "why is that a negative"?
Click to expand...
You have to define negative here.

From a pure soccer development standpoint - it points to a divided priority for the athlete.

Certainly from a economic development (both on a macro scale, and on the individual level), a college degree is a safer bet to a lifetime of earnings - but it comes at the cost of soccer development times.

For kids in Europe or South America, their focus is 100% on becoming better soccer players - that is their focus, and dream is to play on a top team.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
The vast majority won't make it. It sounds like these kids are groomed from pre teens for being pro. Is it a problem that the majority find themselves at 20 years old and not having made it and have to choose another path? 
Click to expand...
To be clear the thread title is about how to create a better national team.

IMO, it is incompatible to create better players and also worry about the majority of kids that fail.  You can't maximize one where the other is not hindered.

Anyone who worries about a career certainly has to think about college.  That is why many parents push this path since they know the variables are massive in their kids becoming pro's that make a good salary.   But we also need to acknowledge that that path is a divergent path from creating a large pool of the best players when the other countries are not worrying about college.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
 I'd define "competitive" as consistently making the World Cup field and consistently having a better than average chance of making it to the Final 16. 
Click to expand...
US made the F16 in 1994, F8 in 2002, F16 in 2010 and 2014.  Failed to do that in 1998, 2006 and 2018.

So fairly competitive already by that standard.  Not very many teams have a better record over the same time.  The difference is that the US doesn't have the horses to go further like those teams do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

parasaurolophus
Kid bullying my daughter.
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous
BassNBrew
  • Poll
Bigger Event - World Cup or Olympics
2
Replies
68
Views
2K
Manster
Manster
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Are You In Favor Of Not Allowing Social Media For Young People?
4 5 6
Replies
255
Views
4K
Rich Conway
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top