EDITORIAL: "FOUR Key Factors That Would Make America A Major Player In World Club Soccer"???

First off go here and read this article then come back and read what follows below.

You may even agree or have friends or colleagues or listen to certain radio shows, that would agree with the above article.

It is not often that we post an editorial, we usually only do when it is something we feel strongly about. Usually on a subject like this we'd stay quiet but because this was posted on one of our partner sites, we felt need to respond and debunk some of it. If you disagree with our view or theirs feel free to post in the comments below.

Basically the article is supposedly a list of four things which will propel MLS to a high status among leagues in world club football. It seems written from the point of view of someone who watches a lot of English Premier League football but knows little about a) the sporting landscape of America, b) the climate of regions such as the northeast in the winter, c) the history of the league or prior ones that failed.

He asserts: "If these four goals are accomplished, soccer’s popularity in the US would rise, and more money would be invested into the league. This would likely be followed by more TV contracts, and marketing opportunities. The US Premier League would eventually become one of FIFA’s major entities."


Basically, we believe there is no easy recipe for MLS to get to where the author wants it to be, which coincidentally he renames the US Premier League.

Authors like this one do not realize there likely is not a quick and cheap solution nor is it likely that there is a quick and expensive one either for the "problem" of MLS not being in its 13 year history as big as leagues that are 100 years old.

The only thing that will move MLS along are two things, time and money. It is doubtful that 10 years ago it would have been possible, despite the amount of money spent, for us to be where we are now. What allowed that was an organic growth of the game in this country on all levels.


What he writes is not all bad. He makes good points but like we said, they're a bit misguided. His words are in red italics.

So we will be brief in addressing them. If you wish to read the whole article it is available here and remember you can give your opinion in the comments below.

1. American leagues must be on the same timetable as world soccer: As of now, the MLS season does not coincide with the world’s major soccer leagues. This must be changed. World soccer is from later summer to spring, while the MLS runs from spring until summer. American soccer cannot not elevate its status being separate from the world like this.

We often hear this and in a perfect world or one with a LOT of global warming this would make sense. It is not just he who thinks this. Many in MLS and US Soccer including US National Team manager Bob Bradley would like this to happen. Aside from his reasons, the fact is that soccer is played at a higher pace in cooler temperatures and apparently that's what is important to this guy and many Americans fed a steady diet of English Premier league. No one doubts that this is an ideal thing But the biggest question is whether fans would show up.

Here are pictures of Wednesday night's US Open Cup play-in match featuring San Jose away to Real Salt Lake, April 30. Complete with snow and a FIFA approved orange ball. Thanks to RSLBoz for the pics. We are always looking for more RSL content here.





Can he explain then why Russia is not on that timetable? If he can then he has part of the answer as to why America is not on it either: The weather. Which he does not address.

There are few nations on earth that have as varied a climate as the US and even fewer that have the kinds of icy temperatures in the major population centers of a large portion of the nation during the winter.

And of those that do, Russia, Scandanavian countries, etc, they play a schedule that varies from what he considers the global standard.

Which brings us to our next point, there are many different schedules in the world, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil play a different schedule than Europe yet those leagues are anything but minor or as he put it, "bit players" in world football. Nor does he make the reverse point, perhaps some of the European leagues should adopt an Apertura and Clausura type schedule so that they aren't constantly whining when the African Nations Cup takes away some of their better players? He wouldn't do that, because the assumption is that everything about the European schedule is perfect. Actually maybe it is, FOR EUROPE.


There were once a couple of leagues in America around the beginning of the 1900s which played an Apertura/Clasura type schedule as well European type schedule through the winter. One was called the American Soccer League.

How do we know this, because we spent about 10 minutes reading about it in the American Soccer History Archives, something the author of the piece we are taking apart er...piece by piece didn't do.

The first American Soccer League was the first true viable professional soccer
league in the United States.  It operated from 1921-1933, flourishing through
the mid 1920s, then becoming involved in a disastrous “soccer war” with the
USSFA and FIFA over commitments to the US Open Cup.  Eventually financial
problems brought on by the Depression resulted in its untimely demise.
The next season the ASL II  was formed.

The success of the ASL I is significant, as the NFL was in its infancy during
the 1920's, and until the late 1920's, the ASL's success equalled or even
surpassed the NFL  Crowds in excess of 10,000 were not uncommon, and if the
league had been able to overcome its problems and continue, then the 1990's may
well have seen soccer as the American national sport rather than gridiron
football.

Teams operated mainly in the northeastern United States, particulary the
Philadelphia-New Jersey-New York area.  

And even before that league there was a very shortlived league called the American Professional Football League which tried to play Fall to winter.

Contrary to popular myth, professional soccer in America did not suddenly erupt on the scene with the arrival of Pelé in 1975. In fact, America’s first attempt at professional soccer took place in 1894, with the formation of the American League of Professional Football. Predating the formation of professional gridiron football and basketball leagues by many years, the ALPF presented a prime opportunity for the sport to become firmly enmeshed in the American sports landscape. Ultimately, that opportunity would be wasted.

In many ways, the United States’ first professional league presented a blueprint for all those that would follow--absentee ownership with interests other than the development of the sport, domination by foreign players, in-fighting within the soccer community, outside factors detrimental to the sport’s development, and lack of fan interest. As history has shown, however, few lessons were learned from the ALPF’s swift and speedy demise.

The August meeting also found the owners adopting a set of playing rules. Press reports at the time describe these rules as "the same as those in use in England, with the exception of a few minor changes." These changes were never identified--however, it would appear, given some press reports, that substitutions were allowed in the league. One other innovation involved the teams' choice of uniforms: contrary to practice at the time, each team was to have a "distinguishing uniform." Essentially, the ALPF clubs adopted the practice of wearing home and away jerseys. At home, clubs were to wear a "white uniform with black stockings," while away from home the uniform would consist of a dark shade jersey and white socks. Finally, the league announced a 10-game schedule, with each team playing five games at home and five on the road. The season would commence October 1, and was to run until January 1; apparently, this plan was later abandoned, as the season would find teams playing six games by mid-October.

Ok so....

Lets for a moment believe that soccer will become so popular that the weather does not matter, people will come out in droves to support it just as they did (relatively) for the old ASL.

After all, last night 19,816 Torontonians braved a windy and rainy 50F degree night to watch a 1-1 draw with Red Bull New York and last year some 26,528 came out to watch DC United take on CD Guadalajara on a windy, rainy 45F degree night for their 1-1 draw in the CONCACAF Champions Cup. Perhaps the league just needs heartier fans like these?

Maybe, but a bigger problem is that by going to the type of schedule played in the more temperate parts of Europe, MLS would be competing with well... European football, head on. And not only that but also with the NFL, NBA, NHL and god knows what else. In the summer, there only one major sport, Baseball. So not only would MLS potentially lose their core footy fanatic base but also the casual fan who follows other sports/all sports.

If there are few people watching on TV and even fewer in the grounds then what would MLS sell to sponsors? "Come watch (and pay for) our empty stadiums and shell out cash for 0 TV ratings" since where will the games be shown on networks already with a full slate of EPL/La Liga/Serie-A/NFL/NBA/NHL??

Not wise. But it again shows he obviously know nothing about the American sports landscape.

Perhaps MLS could move to an Apertura/Clasura type schedule with a winter break but that is as close to the European schedule as it is likely to get.

2. Same format as the world’s major leagues: The current format of MLS is based on the same model as other American sports. That is, there are divisions, a play-off system, and a championship game. This is not the format that FIFA’s major leagues use, and the MLS needs to change if it is to develop into a top league. A dream situation would be to have something such as the US Premier League, with a 20-team table, and sub divisions that use the relegation and promotion rules.

Right because there are no other legitimate leagues which use other systems? I guess Brazil's state leagues are not to be taken seriously, nor Mexico's divisional system either.

And their promotion and relegation systems are dubious at best, as even Tim Vickery will tell you. Some clubs just don't get relegated when they should.

But forget that for a moment. The reason for Promotion and Relegation wasn't "to have more exciting games."

Promotion and Relegation was a solution to the problem of too many clubs playing the sport in most countries. In America we had for the most part the opposite problem, not enough clubs playing the sport, hence no promotion and no relegation.

Then there is the question of whether any owner would a) build a 150-300 million dollar soccer specific stadium and pay $40 million to enter MLS only to perhaps watch his team get relegated to the what? USL First Division? and b) finance the team that's relegated rather than just dissolve it. More lower division teams in the USL have folded than actually are playing. And the reverse holds true, would a USL-1 owner have the cash to run an MLS side, most would not so where would that come from? TV revenue? Yes perhaps in a nation where the sport has no other competition but not on the paltry sums MLS gets at the moment from its broadcast networks. Call us in 30 years ok and we'll revisit the whole promotion and relegation issue.

On the other hand...

We have no problem with a single table. In fact it will make sense to do so in the next couple of years when MLS goes to 18 or 20 clubs. The travel requirements of a single table and balanced schedule are not much more than they are for the league now. However there is no reason to get rid of the post-season playoffs simply to mimic Europe.

Like it or not, they are part of the game here. The USL has a single table with playoffs and the Mexican league has divisional playoffs, yet the Mexican first division is one of the richest leagues in the world and is in fact THE richest league outside of Europe thus proving this point of getting rid of them invalid in terms of enabling success.

Besides why do we need a single table if promotion and relegation are not possible at this time?

The only real reason would be to award spots in international competitions, but that is what is done already with the top 4 in MLS going to the following year's SuperLiga and CONCACAF Champions League. Ok, so you want a league champion based on regular season results? Well there is the Supporters Shield for that.

3.More importation of big international stars: David Beckham signed with the LA Galaxy for a gazillion dollars. That’s great, but he is only one man, and is no longer considered one of the truly best in the world. Beckham cannot revolutionize American soccer by himself. That’s like saying American football would explode in Europe if Tom Brady signed with a Euro football team. It’s not that simple.

Can you imagine the impact of Cristiano Ronaldo on the Red Bulls? Ronaldhino on the New England Revolution? Didier Drogba on FC Dallas? Wayne Rooney on DC United, Kaka playing for the Houston Dynamo? This may seem like a pipe dream, but it would be integral in the process of American soccer reaching its full potential. When the NASL had its glory days in the late 70s, it was largely due to the influx of international stars.

And where is the NASL today? And when would you plan to get these players?

Usually when people of his ilk are asked whether one of these players could/should/would come to MLS TODAY, they will likely say, "oh not now, XYZ player can still play European football, maybe in a couple of years."

Americans are not stupid and the sport and the American player is much better now than in the 1970s. There is no way that an NASL type league would work today with past their prime players in their mid 30s coming over and being competitive. Beckham is not past his prime. Henry if he were to come next year wouldn't be either. Figo, probably is but he might have a good year left in him, if he came THIS SUMMER. The Beckham deal set the standard, come with something in the tank and still being able to play for your national team or don't waste our time/money.


In other words there is a cutoff, a sell-by date if you will. A fairly young but mentally and physically finished Denilson came and did absolutely nothing for FC Dallas, and he is just the most recent example. I urge you to look at some of the other past it players who came to the league and failed. MLS should be targeting the players you mention, yes, but they should do it within the next 2 or 3 years IF and ONLY if revenue justifies the expenditure, otherwise MLS will equal NASL II.

Not to mention, the people he hopes to attract, if for instance, all of these guys came and MLS adopted the schedule he wants would likely say, "well they're clearly past their prime, if they weren't then they would be playing in Europe" WHILE the European leagues are going on.

It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. People who only want to watch European football will only watch European football regardless of who comes to the league IF the league were playing during the months that European leagues are in play. Again. Boneheaded idea.

4. Soccer-only stadiums: All US Premier League teams would have to host in soccer-only stadiums. This would legitimize the league, and not make soccer look like a secondary sport. The teams cannot be playing on fields with football yard line markers on it. It’s pretty self-explanatory to how playing in stadiums designed for soccer matches benefits a soccer league. There used to be stadiums in American that hosted baseball and football games, but this is no more. Every sport has a right to its own playing venue.

This is a no brainer and is pretty much a done deal. Stadiums are being built as we speak. As it stands today the majority of MLS clubs are either playing in or will be playing in a soccer specific stadium in the next few years. Houston, San Jose, Kansas City, and DC United all are likely to move into theirs in the next 3 years with expansion sides coming into the league in their own stadiums as the new "Toronto model". By the 2010 World Cup it will be rare to see an MLS side playing in an NFL stadium. By World Cup 2014 it will be nearly impossible as all but perhaps one or two sides will be playing in their own stadiums.

Speaking of stadiums, Real Salt Lake's stadium is a beauty and is taking shape quite nicely for it's opening late summer/early fall (again thanks to RSLBoz for the pics)


Anyway, we hope that the next time someone brings up these points you point them to this article to save them and you a lot of headache.

We believe that we should like MLS for what it is and what it has the potential to become rather than expect it to be a carbon copy of the English Premier League with an American accent. Grassroots support for the sport is growing daily, more people are playing (not just kids) more stadiums are being built, more youth academies are being set up by MLS clubs, it's all going to be great, if we all just stop fighting over this kind of thing and actually, you know, do what most footballing nations do, SUPPORT THEIR DOMESTIC LEAGUE, regardless of relative quality to the European top 4.

Sometimes viewing the trash can (or is it dustbin) of failed soccer (football leagues) in America is akin to playing the game Civilization. You see how things might have turned out if only there was not an invasion, cultural implosion, lack of infrastructure, or a war.

Sometimes we US (and Canadian) fútbol, football, soccer fans are our own worst enemy. And as history shows that is nothing new.

One would hope we have learned the lesson of over 100 years of leagues that could have developed into something if the support was there, less in-fighting, etc. There are more than enough soccer fans in America to fill NFL stadia, and they often do during friendlies and international matches. Imagine if all or even half of them actually got behind MLS? That may come, but only with time and SMART spending, scheduling and marketing the game properly to fans of world football yet recognizing and perhaps educating them as to why we are different.