Fifa officials are discussing regionalising leagues: MLS implication

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by pc4th, Aug 17, 2007.

  1. woodlands

    woodlands New Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Houston, TX
    Caribbean - Ron86 is correct - there was a thread on this and many of the nations there are just too poor to handle the travel costs. When you add up all the Caribbean nations, you have a decent population, but they are too numerous, too isolated geographically, too poor, and there are too many politically "troubled" nations like Cuba and Haiti that just aren't going to work well.

    Central America - this is an excellent idea (to combine some of their leagues), assuming that there are no political problems.

    US/Canada/Mexico - Triplet1 has the only solution: a conference-style setup. Because this is just too large a geographic area to cover.

    The only big problem that I see with merging Mexican clubs with US clubs into the same league is "middle American" cultural resistance. The "middle American" MLS fans (I'm thinking Kansas City and so on) are going to shoot that proposal down faster than you can say "no hablo espanol". The merger makes sense financially and every other way. But culturally it's too big a bridge to cross, at least any time soon.
     
  2. AlecW81

    AlecW81 Member

    Oct 20, 2005
    Durham, NC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    of bounced checks and corruption.
     
  3. IlliniOnFire

    IlliniOnFire Hostile AND Abusive

    Oct 8, 2006
    Southern Illinois
    *shudder*

    Superliga is a nice tournament, but I don't see the point in it being more than a pool play/knock out event (largest being 16 teams, double round robin pools, 2-legged quarters and semi's.... "grand final" in late august at a neutral site each year)

    outside of America, Chivas, Pachuca, and maybe 1-2 others, I just can't get too excited (or excited at all for that matter) about giving up games against domestic teams...
     
  4. mcontento

    mcontento Member

    Jun 26, 2000
    Catalina Wine Mixer
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Just my opinion/perspective on this, but I believe what Garber was referring to in 2005 was more an early comment on the league working out a deal for Superliga than a true combined league. That's not to say Superliga couldn't be expanded or changed into the future, but I don't see his statement as meaning anything more than combining the leagues as a supplement to the domestic leagues not a replacement.
     
  5. woodlands

    woodlands New Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Houston, TX
    I'm the opposite. While I want to beat other cities for national honors, I like to beat foreign cities as well.

    For 25 years (long before Fox Soccer Channel was invented), America has been surfing past Mexican soccer games on Spanish cable TV stations like Galavision and Telemundo. And 95% of Americans have always surfed right past. And while I don't speak a word of Spanish, I've always seemed to linger for a while on the Mexican soccer games. Sometimes 10 minutes. Sometimes 45 minutes. Being a former player, it's always entranced me. Because it was the game I grew up playing. For many years, it was my only soccer fix. I never knew the names of the clubs or the players. Just the fact that some Mexicans were playing some pro soccer while some idiot announcer shouted "Goooooooooooooooooolllll".

    To finally watch our home-grown boys play against these teams...it's like a bridge to that so-called superior "soccer world" that was always just out of reach.

    And now we find out that we can beat most of these teams? It's unreal.

    Count me in. Every time.
     
  6. Phenom

    Phenom Member+

    Apr 9, 2007
    Oregon
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    No you can't.
     
  7. woodlands

    woodlands New Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Houston, TX
    Not every time. But they've all been beaten. Pachuca was beaten by LA a few weeks ago and by Houston earlier in the year. And the other 3 Mexican clubs in the SuperLiga were all eliminated in the first round.
     
  8. lfcli30

    lfcli30 Member

    Jun 21, 2005
    New York
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, we can. And we already have.
     
  9. Sempuukyaku

    Sempuukyaku Member+

    Apr 30, 2002
    Seattle, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States



    This is a much more reasonable setup. Having the Caribbean and Central American nations form into one league makes a hell of a lot of sense. Mexico and the U.S. though? Not so much.
     
  10. Phenom

    Phenom Member+

    Apr 9, 2007
    Oregon
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Please, Mexican teams weren't taking you seriously at all.

    Also, tell me. Which MLS team beat Guadalajara?
     
  11. amavel

    amavel New Member

    Jun 25, 2007
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Which is why Pachuca battled through 120 minutes and penalties? Because they didn't give two pieces of poo about advancing and getting another shot at LA?

    Excuses, excuses.
     
  12. cpwilson80

    cpwilson80 Member+

    Mar 20, 2001
    Boston
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Until the first payday arrived, and the players still went home empty handed ;)

    It's not surprising that this originated in UEFA, and I think it makes tons of sense: countries are small in both size and population. While major leagues like Italy, Spain, and England might stay untouched, combining even the next tier of countries - like, say, Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria - would create a league that draws from roughly the same population as California. Additionally, these leagues have some established teams that are on the periphery of the Champions League each year, and the increased competition would strengthen them.

    As for MLS and FMF, due to geography, competing interests, and money, I can't see the two combining into one league for a regular season. I think a tournament like Superliga makes far more sense for a relationship between the two leagues.
     
  13. AlecW81

    AlecW81 Member

    Oct 20, 2005
    Durham, NC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We'll see what happens in Copa Sudamericana.
     
  14. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2006
    If you just look at Concacaf, this really makes perfect sense for a Central American League. The three strongest leagues in Central America are in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Honduras, which currently have ten or twelve domestic teams in their respective first divisions. Eight of those 32 clubs play in larger stadiums comparable to MLS venues, have large fan followings and, generally, are significantly stronger than their leagues: Saprissa and LD Alajuelense from Costa Rica, Municipal and CSD Comunicaciones from Guatemala, and Olimpia, Motagua, Real Espana, and CD Marathon from Hondurus. Toss in a couple of smaller clubs that have nonetheless enjoyed historic success, like Club Sport Herediano from Costa Rica and Xelajú from Guatemala, and you have a solid, ten team league that would draw from a region of 25 million people. Exactly what FIFA and UEFA have in mind, IMO.

    By contrast, I see virtually no chance for a combined league in the Caribbean. There just are not the facilities to support it, nor is there the money to build them.

    That leaves the FMF and MLS clubs. Right now I think the wheels are spinning at FMF -- they are looking at changes. If you have followed the Mexican boards at BS during the last year or so, there have been whispers of an effort to form a Mexican Premier League, which like the EPL would require upgrading stadium investment. FSC also mentioned that the league is considering chucking the split season format. And of course, there is SuperLiga to ponder. All signs point to the idea that they are discussing some big changes, and clearly the big clubs see lots of money in the US and much more international exposure, especially in Europe. (Fair or not, I suspect there are many, many more fans worldwide that know of the LA Galaxy than know of Pachuca.) The question for the FMF clubs is how to tap those dollars and get that exposure without seriously jeopardising all that they have already achieved by alienating their fans. That's not easy.

    For it's part, I am convinced that MLS wants a larger relationship with FMF clubs too, hence the discussions about expanding SuperLiga, although I agree that a full combination of the two leagues would trigger something of a backslash in the US as well. Boiled down though, MLS will live or die by its TV contracts, and if they can consistently reach a large Mexican-American TV audience (in Spanish or English telecasts), it is worth millions and millions of dollars to the league in future revenue. Playing Mexican clubs puts that in MLS' grasp.

    What to do?

    As I suggested earlier, I think they would look at separate conferences to preserve the identity of each league, just as the NFL and AFL did after they merged, and combine. The beauty of conferences is that you can have an unbalanced schedule that allows more clubs to be included. Even with 12 team conferences, playing a home/reverse schedule against teams in your conference and a one off against the teams in the other conference still gives you a 34 game schedule that is weighted to traditional geographic rivals. That makes the most sense to me.

    Another option is to radically alter SuperLiga. If FMF is finding a dual champion split season problematic and lack of a longer winter break exhausting, they could take the first half of their season and play SuperLiga in this slot instead. If both leagues are at 18 clubs, you would have six groups of six and every team could be included. Play the ten group games on the current FMF schedule on weekends from the end of February to the first weekend of May, follwed by the three weeks of playoffs for the final 8 teams just as the FMF does now. (There would be more than enough warm venues to deal with the February and March contests.) Leave June for the national teams and start both leagues at the end of July, playing 17 to 20 game schedules with the playoffs starting in mid-November (again just as FMF clubs do now). Collectively, clubs will still have 30 game seasons, but each part of the split season would yield a uniquely different trophy. Not as good as a combined league IMO, but easier to undo if it didn't work.

    There are probably other alternatives too, but economically there would simply be too much to gain for both leagues. They would almost certainly come up with something.
     
  15. Schwalker

    Schwalker New Member

    Apr 15, 2007
    Gelsenkirchen/Finja
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Erm, considering that this Uefa conference was about how to handle the significant amount of mini-leagues that exists in Europe...Moldavia, Montenegro and Luxemburg in particular.

    Are you guys not getting a bit to exited..?
     
  16. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hey, stereotypes are fun!
     
  17. Swami

    Swami Member

    Mar 5, 2005
    De facto, that is what SuperLiga is. After the first 8 games, do you think that was a terrible idea?

    For those who seem obsessed for pro/rel, here is your de facto opportunity. Teams will be promoted into and out of SuperLiga, especially if there is an expanded format -- say, a total of 16 teams rather than 8.

    I think it's clear that MLS objective should have and apparently has shifted to focusing on converting a large base of existing soccer fans to MLS rather than seeking to convert non-soccer fans to soccer fans. Given, this objective, they need to enhance game day/television experience and to enhance the quality of play. They're working on the first with the stadiums and increased EPSN/Univision/TeleFutura commitment. The second will be executed by infusing the league with better talent (shorter term -- raising the cap, slightly increasing international slots), youth development (longer term but the real key) and enhancing the competition. Playing already established Mexican teams in meaningful competition is a quick way to enhance quality of play. Do you think ANY MLS team will be dogging it if they're playing a Mexican team -- even on an afternoon in the dead of summer?

    The league is doing all the right things. I'm really confident about where they're taking things. I do hope that they don't lose the momentum from having Beckham and can take advantage of the window to get higher quality international talent by raising the cap.
     
  18. Lucid

    Lucid Member

    May 17, 1999
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    wtf? Do you not realize that KC is one of the few, if not only, market to have Wizards games on TV & radio in both english and spanish? Even if I weren't from Kansas City, I'd still bash you for stereotyping all midwesterners as xenophobes.

    A cultural resistance by midwesterners is the "only big problem" you can see? Think harder. How about the mexican resistance to let the gringos in? It's easy for us to say "scrap the domestic league as we know it now" considering the MLS is only been around for 12 years. but Mexico has had their own league for 65 years. Now all of a sudden americans are going to come in and take away that tradition?

    How is this for a problem, you take 10 MLS teams, merge it with 10 FMF teams and viola, you have a new super league. Well that's great, but what about the remaining 5-10 MLS teams that were left behind and are now in a minor league? Without the good teams and the stars coming, attendance sucks and teams fold up shop. You'll have more instances of what happened when Miami Fusion became USL Miami FC. Congrats, you just limited the US to 10 League 1 teams and the dropoff to League 2 is substantial.

    Wait... maybe all that is just my midwestern hatred of anything mexican. Ignore me. Go Bush!
     
  19. woodlands

    woodlands New Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Houston, TX
    - Your point about the Mexicans' resistance is somewhat good. But in another post recently, we've seen the Mexicans are talking about "sweeping changes" in their league - like another division. Remember their country has been going through massive economic growth since globalizing kicked in in the last decade.

    - Your point about the remaining MLS teams is a good issue that has to be addressed. If the top 10 teams triple in revenue and the bottom 4 teams of MLS vanish to the USL...and if MLS still wins up ahead on the deal...that's business, my friend.

    - Your point about American's resistance to a Mexican merger being an "unfair stereotype"...I don't agree at all. In my opinion, it's a very real issue. In all parts of America. And I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. Or even that I'm necessarily any different than anyone else in that respect.

    Let me say that I'm sorry for your sake that KC is struggling compared to other MLS cities. But no need to "shoot from the hip" like a cowboy any time KC is mentioned in any post. It just detracts from what would otherwise be good points you have to make. It makes you look like a flame-thrower and not a serious discusser. For the record, KC was just an example of an American city with a relatively low foreign-born population. I was thinking about using Columbus but I wasn't sure if they had been experiencing big immigration lately. Maybe I should have said "Iowa".
     
  20. SterNYork

    SterNYork Member

    Aug 14, 2007
    Superliga, for me was an MLS vs. FMF bragging rights tournamnet. I don't like the idea of the two leagues merging to become one entity, working together torwards a common goal. This is a terrible idea on so many levels. MLS should form it's own identity, it's own traditions, it's own storied history, it's own rivalries. How can you erase the FMF's history? How bad would it be if the Prem and LFP merged and you lost all of that history? What is this obsession with the FMF and MLS becoming intertwined anyway, even Superliga... This is nothing more than supernationalism at it's very worst.
     
  21. Heist

    Heist Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And on Mexican team beat the Red Bulls or Toronto?
    The point is, MLS teams have beaten a lot of the top Mexican teams. It stands to reason that they could beat many of the others if given the chance. It doesn't mean the MLS teams are better (although in the case of Houston, I think they'd do well in Mexico), but we are getting a lot closer and the "not taking it seriously" line is BS. Club American didn't take the competition seriously, but that's all you can really argue. In the Houston-Pachuca game, can you really argue that they didn't take it seriously? And all the fouls and cards? Those aren't players who aren't taking it seriously. Perhaps the fans didn't care as much... but that doesn't really matter.
     
  22. degerron

    degerron New Member

    Feb 18, 2006
    Queens
    [Perhaps the fans didn't care as much... but that doesn't really matter.[/quote]

    If Mexican fans didn't really care then it does matter. Fans demanding a win or demanding a tournament be won puts pressure on a team to perform. If the Mexican fans didn't care much about Superliga then Mexican teams could blow it off as a blimp on their schedule. Pachuca is a differently story as they try to win each and every tournament or trophy available to them. Oddly enough they have a small fan base compared to teams like Pumas, America, and Chivas. Remember their home leg in Champions Cup against Houston? Attendance was going to be so poor in that one that they had to make the game free.

    Still Pachuca made sure they would not lose 2-0 like that first leg in Houston's Champions Cup. We all admit the two teams played pretty even in Houston for their Superliga match. When you factor the 5-2 score in the Mexican leg of their Champions Cup match between Houston and Pachuca how even are the two teams when you take the MLS team off of US soil?
     
  23. Bill Schmidt

    Bill Schmidt BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 3, 2003
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wow, this is quite the shift in FIFA's outlook from just a few years ago when we were wondering whether it would even allow a Canadian team to join an American league.
     
  24. Lucid

    Lucid Member

    May 17, 1999
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    "If the MLS..."? The MLS wouldn't exists anymore. We're talking about american soccer here. The league is around to develop soccer in this country, not make money. Money is of course an objective, but not the main goal. By limiting this country to 10 Major League teams (in maybe only 7 or 8 cities), that significantly hurts the leagues primary goal, developing soccer. The owners realize the money is made by developing the sport here, not looking for a quick buck like the NASL.


    Yes, in parts of america there is a resistance, but it is typically urban vs. rural, not in top 15 cities vs the rest of the country.

    I rarely respond to KC flamers, cause frankly I could care less what most of the people on here think. We have a great ownership group, a good team, and a stadium on the way, nuff said. I've been around these boards for 8 years, so I'm pretty immune to KC bashers.

    It was your stereotype that "middle american soccer fans" (which includes me) are xenophobes that was just ignorant. Seriously, how can you be a soccer fan and also afraid of foreign influence on your sport? That's pretty much a contradiction. I could care less that KC was the example, as I said, I would have said the same thing if you pointed at Columbus or Salt Lake City.

    If you would have said "rural america" instead of "middle america", then I wouldn't have said anything. That is, unless you think KC and Columbus are just big sheep farms, in which case, I'll take a picture of the skyscrapers outside my downtown loft to show you that we don't go cow tipping on the weekends.
     
  25. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2006
    It is. An earlier post suggested it isn't that big a deal, but I think it is potentially a huge reversal of FIFA policy. If UEFA implements it, it will spread quickly IMO.

    Thinking about this some more, I can't believe UEFA is going to let a G-14/18 super league get a foothold though. My guess is that they will try and slow that down by forcing countries to combine and form a single joint first division league, rather than letting teams from a half dozen countries form a new league which potentially wouldn't have promotion or relegation.

    We might see a joint Swiss/Austrian/Hungarian league, Dutch/Belgian League, or similar combinations in Eastern Europe, but I don't think UEFA will let the top clubs of Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland combine to form a single super league comprised of teams that have outgrown their domestic leagues.
     

Share This Page