The Ringer: Own Goal: The Inside Story Of How the Us Missed the World Cup

So would I, but at this point who is drawing well?

Connect the dots and maybe we'll see a narrative emerge as to how to successfully market an MLS club to its local community. Or maybe not. The only definite trend that I can see that's undeniable is that MLS 1.0 clubs don't draw particularly well, stadium or no, and newer clubs that opened in markets eager to receive them do better, some somewhat better and some extremely (Atlanta) so.

 

How many MLS 1.0 clubs are there, really?

CLB (may or may not get moved/put under new ownership)
NE
DCU (soon to change, presumably)
CHI (new shareholder, possibly will see some change here)
PHI
COL

Who else?

And what's "particularly well"? Is drawing 20K a year good enough? Or do you need to draw 25-30K? Dallas is outdrawn by Colorado, but nobody thinks of them as MLS 1.0...

SKC rebranded, and is a stalwart. SJ left, came back, and finally has a good stadium and butts in seats.

There are lots of moving parts here, and some cloudy definitions. Do we penalize OCSC for playing in a downsized stadium instead of selling more seats in the Orange Bowl?

ATL, MTL, VAN, all play in football stadiums. NYCFC plays in part of Yankee Stadium...

 

SJ is basically an MLS 1.0 side that downgraded their ownership group and had a 2 year hiatus. NYRB are of course the re-branded MetroStars, and even though they're in an excellent facility and have played entertaining soccer for several years now, and have strong youth soccer relationships, the community clearly does not give a crap about them. We "sell" close to 20k per game, officially, but the eye test for me this season in person has been maybe, oh, 12-14k butts actually in seats. Our 25k stadium is generally about half full.

You definitely have a point about SKC. They run quite strongly counter to the trend, though.

Orlando are doing fantastic. Their raw numbers are as good as their stadium allows, and they clearly are an important part of that community. Atlanta, well that speaks for itself. I don't know if I ever believed I'd live to see a team regularly sell out an NFL stadium, but there it is. Montreal and Vancouver are clearly important in their respective communities, even if they have't been the unqualified success that Atlanta is. Toronto upgraded their building and clearly support their side. Portland and Seattle, obviously. And they're brand new, and perhaps the "new team smell" will wear off eventually, but LAFC have gotten off on the best foot they could really have hoped to have gotten off in terms of fan support and community impact. (And that building is gorgeous.)

 

Who are the MLS 1.0 teams now? I don't think SJ qualifies anymore, despite being terrible. MLS 1.0 teams don't play in SSS. They don't get any attendance. They don't have nice/convenient stadiums. They don't spend much money on the on-field product. IMO, SJ ticks the last box, and basically misses the rest...

 

We might be talking about differing definitions, but that's ok. I think the important thing is to note the combination of factors that make a club successful in terms of fan support and community importance, and how they contrast with those that have been less successful.

3 of the last 4 seem to have gotten it right, so maybe this riddle has finally been solved. If so, that bodes well for American soccer, particularly if some of the other clubs manage to poach any of their front office personnel, or at least study the lessons learned.

 

Here's the real reason why the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup



What happened? Why is our men's soccer team so weak?

Pundits may place blame at the highest levels — the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, or the coach of the national team. But maybe the problem is not at the top. Maybe it's at a local field, where kids practice in fancy uniforms under the eyes of anxious parents, hands-on coaches and vigilant referees. Kids stand in line kicking balls through cones, listening to lectures about technique and tactics.

They are not playing soccer, they´re practicing it. But soccer is a game. To learn the beautiful game, they need to play it.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ccer-team-youth-kids-sports-column/768826002/

 

While there are elements of this that are true (and even more that are "truthy") this is still quite facile.

 

I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt because the alternative makes them look much worse than I described and make people's defense of MLS in regards to the USMNT that much more questionable. I basically agree and would be surprised if many have a clue.

My comments were to the Article and Hannauers claim to be better for kids due to them looking out for the community. Also to respond to simplistic comments like "see they development academies". I was under no expectations that they would do what I suggested, but was describing one way they could approaching things if they were worried about the community, american players, and the long term viability of their league. It seems we are in agreement that they dont know what they are doing and just focused on short term gains.

The short term value is in selling those players, but if not sold those players could mean not needing to buy south Americans in the future. The league has been able to retain players much higher than the hypothetical 25th best and have made money on them. The depth of our 18 year olds has improved dramatically relative to our 22 yos. That should mean that the 25th best player should continue to improve and the difference between the 25th and 100th player should shrink substantially.

I dont see how people blindly support them when they are obviously only incentivized by their short term investment. Your view is in line with mine and others that the American player is low on their list of priorities.

This is why I dont want our best young players anywhere near MLS. This also why I think US soccer and specifically the USMNT coach should provide incentives and make these same wishes publicly known to this point.

So let's be clear about what MLS league is and isnt. They aren't a major league. They aren't about the good of the game or the American player unless it has been proven they can monetize it. The aren't visionaries.

The are still a young and cautious league that buy players but rarely develops them while trying to sell themselves as being more than 20 years ahead of where they are They are an arrogant bunch who at least believe they are the top of the game in this country and expect others to follow them blindly. They are an organization that led an attack on the usmnt and its coach. That attack was successful and the coaches replacement was pro-MLS and that team failed to qualify for the world cup.

I think the article of this thread should have spent much more time on MLS and Arena than trying to find every weakness in Klinsmann. Based on this discussion, JKs comments about the league weren't only acceptable, but part of his responsibilities. In the the "dispute" the league waged against Klinsmann, they look like ignorant, entitled, and selfish Billionaires who continually claim they are things they are not.

 

Dont mean MLS needed to sell him? Did Acosta turn down option to leave?

Zelalem was in a youth program that has a track record of developing players and got a loan to 2nd div Dutch and Scottish leagues. The Dutch do a decent job developing players and the move to Rangers was more about being a pro in a physical league with high exposure.

Hyndman has continued to improve as player while training with an EPL side and with a loan to the SPL. I've seen nothing to suggest that Acosta is a better midfielder than Hyndman, but Acosta had 13 international appearances in 2017 and Hyndman had 0. It is hard to reconcile that beyond an MLS bias.

 

If the bears were to move to Bridge view, they would still sell out.

I highly doubt that if the Fire and the city could agree on a good deal and the team moved to Soldier field that the team will tun into a Seattle Sounders of Attendance.

but maybe we could break 20K in average attendance, in a good year.

 

I would say yes, NY city was the only city that did not include territorial rights, LA did so when Chivas USA came in they paid the Galaxy (the new LA team bought those rights from MLS after MLS bought Chivas USA.

The rights may be worth around 100M but that is just speculation.

If another MLS team bought an expansion spot and then paid territorial rights, would the contract still force both MLS teams to play in bridgeview?

 

CLB, CHI, COL and PHI play in Soccer Specific Stadiums, so are they not MLS 1.0?

What is any attendance? less than 15K average? less than 25K?

Carson, Frisco, Harrison, Kansas city Kansas (not the bigger KC Missouri) how convenient are they? (I would say they are nice, maybe not the one in Carson or Frisco).

Top teams based on salary, see Houston at the bottom, see the Rapids and Fire on the top 10.


https://houston.sportsmap.com/dynamo-rank-last-2018-mls-salaries-52-million-roster/



Based on your own criteria, only New England may classify as MLS 1.0

 

I think the contract says that any MLS match played within 90 miles of Chicago must be played at Toyota Park.

 

Whenever I see this phrase, I know exactly who wrote it.

Dude, come up with some new material! You use this phrase to shortcut analysis, nuance, and context.

 

I don't think they need to be the Sounders, but they should at least have aspirations of being TFC in terms of relevance within a city.

Nowadays I see other MLS team apparel being worn around the city more than the Fire. Saw a kid in an old Portland jersey in Dearborn Park last night.

 

Seconded, most particularly the last sentence. I don't totally disagree with his general assessment vs the 5 biggest leagues, but when a semantic shortcut becomes a cognitive crutch...

 

...which I should say is kind of sad because the current Fire kits are some of the best they've ever had.

 

I'll speak to Harrison: it's roughly about as convenient to the "heart" of NYC (Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn) as Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. Depending upon exactly where you live, obviously that might be quite different. A major line of public transportation has a station right outside the parking lot. I live in a major neighborhood of Brooklyn and the trip to Harrison is about 30-45 minutes including waiting for an arriving train on average, similar to what it takes to make the trip to the Bronx. But it costs an extra $2.75 to transfer to the NY/NJ PATH subway from NYC's primary MTA subway. For some this might be a hinderance, but I doubt it is for most. Mostly, I think it's the psychological barrier of being on the NJ side of the river. Clearly that doesn't stop NY Giants or Jets fans, though...

I don't think that's all there is between NYCFC and NYRB, though. Part of it I think was NYCFC's "new team smell." Part of it I think was the Europoseur hipster effect of Lampard, Pirlo, and Villa (2 of which are gone and one of which is starting to show his age, finally), and the affiliation with Man City. And perhaps something else which I'm missing. But I still can't understand people without a very deep-seated affiliation for that club (how could they already?) paying more money to see a game in a crappier stadium for soccer terms, on a pitch that very negatively impacts the play, a club that has very little interest in building relationships with youth soccer clubs as opposed to the other club that actively courts their interest--including discounted tickets--and participation and heavily recruits for their successful youth academy, and thus far has not been anymore successful soccer-wise. It's gotta be novelty and branding more than location.

 

LOL. I'm not sure why my using shorthand to denote the significant difference between the top 4 leagues and the rest of the world triggered such a post from you but I'd guess it's tied to MLS-related defensiveness. One of the points I'm trying to make is that the whole concept of "Europe = great" is hogwash; MLS is at least equal to the majority of European leagues and it doesn't make a lot of sense for our players to move laterally to an equivalent or lower league generally. We should treat all of these leagues the same wrt our player pool.

You post is ironic because I've specifically asked you multiple times for opinions and you've not responded at all. I'd be happy to repost these request if you agreed to discuss them.

Furthermore, I've noticed that your posting style is mainly critiquing other posts without adding counter-points in rebuttal. For example, telling posters to sleep with a chicken doesn't really enhance the dialogue.

In the spirit of additional analysis, I'd welcome a critique on post #712 where I attempted to lay out two areas where USSF should actively work to address conflict-of-interest with MLS. I honestly don't know where using the phrase "minor league" shortcuts analysis, nuance, and context but am happy to try to improve.

 

?? I don't get it. Honda played there at VVV and moved on to top clubs. Mertens played in that league, like Chadli and see where they ended up. Just the most recent ones. Just about 20 km from VVV the kid Per Schuurs was the youngest captain at Fortuna Sittard (new club of Novakovitch) at 17 and moves on to Ajax.
The Scottish league apart from Rangers and Celtic are laughable.

 

The challenge when playing is one thing and probably MLS is on par with even the Championship, which plays ugly 1980s football. But in terms of Development it is hard to argue MLS is on par with the second tiers of the top leagues or the smaller leagues from Holland to Denmark. Then the third thing is Player Movement. Here, MLS is actually a real problem. They had a strategy of not letting Americans move out; which continues to today as far as we can tell.

But if your point is in picking NT rosters for a game that week, a guy in form in MLS is on par with a guy in form in the Championship, that might be true. But if the player is 22-25, the former might be a USMNT prospect, while the latter is probably on year one or two of a five year MLS contract and will never move out of MLS. That player might be a depth piece, but is probably not a prospect. At least that is how I see things at this point.

With an example: Novocavich is a fringe player who was called in from the Dutch 2nd tier. I don't doubt that most MLS teams could beat Dutch 2nd tier teams. However, at 22, if he continues to develop, he could be in a top 4 league in 1-2 years. Not saying it will happen, just where he is lets him move to his ceiling quickly. Corey Baird is also 22 and plays at RSL. He is under contract for the next 5 years probably. If he develops, would he actually get a move to a Top 4 league, and when, 3-6 years from now?

 

It may be rooted in defensiveness and insecurity, but I have viewed it as an immature arguing/debating method to derail the discussion or just provide a distraction. Your point about aging european players and their national teams is valid even if not always true. An MLS fan making an issue over a couple players was about spending time discussing anything but the actual point. The idea that an MLS fan is just worried about facts being correct is actually pretty funny.

I dont agree with the second part of the paragraph (which I separated into two). All Europe is great is a simplistic argument, and actually think it is more of a straw man that has been repeatedly thrown out over the years in response to someone like you suggesting a move to teams in top 4/5 leagues with potentially other criteria that you dont lay out in every post. I think your view is an improvement but seems to just focus on average quality of play while there are many more factors to consider.

I would phrase the goal i'd like our top player to be striving for is to get to a top league. If that is the case, then most of the european leagues are a better option than MLS. The coaching, the training, the competition, the exposure, the willingness or desire to sell, etc make a move to better league more likely. When a young player like EPB says he learned how to be a professional in the 2nd division of portugal, I have to question how good an environment there is at SKC.

The other thing I'd point out is that just as Europe isnt homogeneous, neither is MLS. Playing for NYRB is very different than playing for LAG, Minnesota or SJ. Besides the differences in teams, the tiered nature of each roster makes it harder for a player to raise their status within a club materially. The DPs, TAMs, GAMs will most likely stay above them on the pecking order.

 

I'm not sure I completely understand your comment. I'll do my best to clarify.

My word choice wasnt the best for their time at Rangers. Exposure isnt the the right word. What I was referring to was the experience of playing for a large or historic club in front 50,000 people. Rangers was still in the 2nd division, so the level of play was a step below laughable. I didnt think it was a good move for playing purpose other than the style having some similarities to how some teams play in the EPL.

I dont follow the bit about the players from eridivisie. Can you clarify? It seems your comments would be more appropriately directed at the poster I was responding to in my post. Zelalem left VVV to go to u20 WC and blew out his knee in the first game.

 

What's immature is assumptions and labels and setting up an "us vs them" mentality just because someone corrects a false statement. I mean, I guess I'm an MLS fan in that I don't hate the league and I don't constantly rail against it, but this year it's actually my fourth most watched league at best, behind two Euro leagues and the USL. In general I agree that our best players should be at a high level in Europe if the goal is to have the best possible national team. But go ahead with the hostility. It's really helping you out.

 

It's about checking multiple boxes.

Chicago play in an "OK" SS stadium. My cousins live in Wilmette, I haven't been but they have, and that's their description.

Chicago average less than 15K. As an established brand in the 3rd largest market, that is not good.

Bridgeview being a 45-minute or hour long drive from the suburbs is not necessarily ideal, particularly as it's farther from all the money on the North side. The public transportation doesn't drop you off right there, you've got to grab a shuttle. So it's not in an amazing location either.

Chicago signed Schweinstager, but their on-field product certainly ain't great. Just like how Rooney doesn't turn DC into "big spenders", Schweini doesn't make Chicago into Toronto w/r/t spending.

So how do they not classify as 1.0? They're a far cry from their glory days of the early MLS. Their fan support is bottom third of the league despite not being the worst in the league. There are no obvious gains to be had in attendance, and Bridgeview will simply continue to get older and older.

Whether those classify them as 1.0 is a matter of opinion, but basically, I'm trying to look at the bottom of the league in terms of attendance, and look at the positives and negatives of each team. If you've got more negatives than positives, you're 1.0. If you've got more positives than negatives, you're not.

San Jose fills about 90-95 percent of their brand-new stadium in an OK location next to the SJ airport despite being nearly unwatchable and ZERO star power. Not as good as someone like ATL, or maybe even Portland, but better than DCU's crumbling football stadium, Chivas USA-like attendance, and Rooney-spiced team of nobodies.