Because it's not very well done. They usually rely on a single camera angle with a relatively narrow view of the field. They use announcers who either have a limited knowledge of the game, or are remarkably inexpressive. They cover large parts of the screen with graphics. The way soccer is broadcast in the United States is not particularly good television. If what's on is not entertaining, there are 187 other channels that may be, so let the channel-surfing begin! That said, the business model isn't bad, and more teams are inching toward profitability with a decent chance of market expansion in the futre. If that's your idea of success, then the answer to the original question is, "Yes, eventually." If the quality play is what you have in mind, then it's my opinion that the product (MLS) is improving, and the outlook in terms of younger players developing here is quite positive. If I was an investor I'd look at it as a positive, but only if I was in for the long term.
hey idiot foreign people. my name is chris. i am an american. americans are the best. we are better than everybody else at everything. all the other countries in the world are nowhere near as good at soccer as we are. all the other countries should call it soccer, too. we are going to win 8 world cups in the next century. that is because we have the best athletes in the world. they are so much better than everybody else's. every world cup should probably be held in america. ours got the most money so it was obviously the best. screw germany or any of those other places. they aren't even good at soccer. someday when an mls team wins a championship they will be crowned world champions. they will deserve to be called that because we are the best country in the world and any of our mls teams could beat every team in the world. that is how it is in baseball and it makes a lot of sense there. go usa, the team of the donovan-adu-beasley goal-scoring squad with the goalie powerhouse brad friedel! disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are not mine and are solely meant to represent the sheer stupidity of many american soccer fans.
Topher, run a little bit closer to the gene pool please. Yeah, right there at the wet spot....just keep running.
LOL. That's funny. It describes just as your disclaimer says, the sheer stupidity of some of my american country men. Good Job.
We by no means have a monopoly on stupid nationalistic soccer fans... I'd rather have stupid national soccer team homers who do nothing but root for their team against the world than not.
actually, i agree with you to a point. but i'm just fed up with reading all these us fans go on and on. did you read any of the threads after the Wales friendly? good lord, you would have thought that the score was 30-0 and each member of the US team played like Pelé.
what i had said was still pretty tongue in cheek. but on a serious note. what league in percentage wide of world talent has the best players, the NBA or La Liga/Serie A. I'll argue to the death that the NBA does, granted that's because soccer is a more global sport. However my point essentially was that i can dream of a time when MLS has a league with a comprable level of talent to the NBA.
you cant compare nba to world soccer like this. soccer is extremely popular world wide and the best talent will always be diluted world wide. nba obviously has the most talent because where else would anyone else with talent play? you can argue to the death all you want, but have fun trying to find someone who disagrees on that point.
he already explained what he meant when he said that. just back away. there's no need to start a fight.
Question... What's the criteria? The only list I've seen in this thread is from SObearCAL, and if we go by that list, then, yes, the US is already there. Those of you who say no (and remember, the key word in the question is ever, not right now), why? What are your standards that you think the US will never meet? Regarding that exclusive 7-member club, correct me if I'm wrong, but is Brasil the only member of that group that doesn't have at least one of it's WC triumphs on home soil? Hmmm... Given that, along with our improvement, it stands to reason that the next time the US hosts a World Cup - and there will be a next time, you can take that one to the bank - I'd say we'd have to be considered at least a darkhorse favorite to win. After all, it didn't hurt England to be playing at home in '66... (or France in '98...or South Korea last year...or even the US in '94...)
im hardly trying to start a fight. i just want to know if he thinks the mls will one day be comparable to the nba in terms of world talent or if this is simply another of his unrealistic dreams. in terms of us soccer success. of course they have been successful. look at the team two world cups ago to the team now. if all teams measured success by the amount of world cups they win, there would be many unsuccessfull teams. us team had a great world cup and in the last 4 years has has some great results. like other people pointed out us team will only improve. i think us will become a significant force in world soccer in the next 10-15 years, but talk of multiple world cups is slightly ridiculous.
There's a thread on similar lines somewhere else and the point I made was that unlike football, in basketball (and hockey, and I suppose baseball and gridiron as well) there are no other rich leagues at all and no remotely big or rich clubs. There is no Real Madrid of basketball (..err.. except the Real Madrid basketball club, but you get my point). The NBA domination comparision would only be valid if the biggest, richest league in Europe was on par with the league of Norway. Financially NBA clubs are on a different planet to their european counterparts, and to get to a stage where MLS clubs could drain talent away to the same degree then the game would have to be more popular than the NFL is now. That would be a staggering achievement, and not one I see as being possible even if the US team does get very strong.