Found some comments Sir Alex Ferguson made on the ESPN soccer site. Thought they were interesting and would like to read what you all think. ---------------------------------- And Ferguson feels the distance between teams affects the impact of football on American society. 'The size of the country makes it difficult,' he said. 'In European football, and especially in British football, you can travel easily. 'If you are Boston and need to go to Los Angeles it's a six-hour flight. Supporters don't travel so you are missing that rivalry between fans. 'So you have a problem. To make it substantial you would have to go regional but there's not enough teams to have four strong leagues.' Ferguson, who was speaking to an audience at the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow, feels the MLS is also undermined by an exodus of young homegrown talent. 'What you have got in the States is that a lot of kids are playing football in the States and there is nowhere to go,' he said. 'The best American players go to Europe very early, like Brad Friedel (at Blackburn), (Brian) McBride and (Clint) Dempsey at Fulham. So that situation doesn't help the American game.'
Those are definately factors. The fact that Americans, by and large, just don't like soccer that much is probably the biggest factor. That's slowly changing though.
Wow, so uh...who were those guys cheering for Red Bull when last they visited Foxborough? Those guys in orange for the Dynamo a few games back? Also, I've never been to Chicago but there's plenty of rivalry there. Just because we can't all go where we'd like doesn't mean there's no rivalry.
I can't see MLS being divided into four separate leagues. Maybe two conferences and four divisions. There are some fan rivalries where traveling is pretty easy. NY/DC. NY/NE. LA/Chivas. As you get more teams, there could be Redbulls/NY (second NY area team), Redbulls/NY/Philly, DC/Philly, DC/second NY team, Toronto/Montreal, and Portland/Seattle/Vancouver. Sir Alex also ignores existing sports rivalries that could be easily transferred to soccer. Philly and Dallas NFL fans hate each other.
The fact that Fergie couldn't name any US players who were better examples of the point he was trying to make (ie - best young talent leaving for Europe early, or at least after only short stints in MLS), such as perhaps Feilheiber, Zizzo, Szetala, Convey, Beasley, Onyewu, Gibbs ... hell, he couldn't even mention his own former players Howard or Spector ... is evidence to me that Fergie really isn't an appropriate authority to talk about soccer in the US. When did he say he was last hear ... the 1970s? I mean, Friedel went to Europe "early" because MLS wasn't in existence (tried to sign for Nottingham, Newcastle and Sunderland, but was denied a work permit each time). After a few months with Brondby, and then a stint with Galatasary, he came home to MLS in '97, though he left again to Liverpool in '98, at the age of 27. McBride too only went to Germany "early" because MLS wasn't in existence, but he came back for the inaugural year and stayed for 8 years (albeit with loans to Preston and Everton beginning when he was 28 years old). How is that NOT growing and holding onto the top talent? And Dempsey at 24 is hardly a "budding" talent. EDIT: This thread should probably be merged into this thread, on the new/analysis forum.
Let's see, Auburn/Alabama, Oklahoma/Texas, Michigan(ha!)/OSU... then you compare, what, Raiders/KC? Come on, the NFL's rivalries are a joke compared to the regional college football rivalries. Now, what separates the NFL from absolutely everything is how television is the tail wagging the dog. Take out TV revenue, there really isn't a whole lot there.
Sir Alex isn't talking about rivalries, but rather "[soccer's] impact on American Society." And regarding your second point (about TV revenue), you've got to be joking. Are you actually trying to argue that professional football is not by far the most popular spectator sport in the U.S.? There's a reason that the networks shell out the type of money that they do for broadcasting rights. Sports is a business just like any other, and the major reason soccer is not thriving to the degree that other sports are in the U.S. is quite simply that the demand for it is not on par with other major sports.
It's hard to say overall, but at least in some regions College football is way ahead. In the southeast your calender is based around attending your college team's games, wheras NFL is something you watch casually on tv. More people in Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio and Michigan are attending the college games than the pros as well. As far as total dollars spent on tickets or total viewers on tv for the season as a whole (not just the superbowl) who knows which is really biggest. I know the college tickets cost a ton more once you factor in the scholarship "donation" required to buy them. And don't most football fans just watch the good matches from both each week anyway?
To answer your last question, no. I live in the DC metro area, admittedly not exactly a hotbed for college football. People rarely talk about the Terps or Wahoos football games. VaTech is a bit more popular, due to the alumni base in this area. But everyone around here follows the Redskins. I don't know how the nationwide ratings compare between college and pro football, so I suppose it's possible that college football could be as popular as the NFL. But really I think you guys are missing my point. I [sarcastically] stated that the great size of the U.S. is hurting the NFL, to point out that Fergie doesn't understand the sports landscape here in the States. Plenty of sports thrive and impact U.S. culture in a big way regardless of the size of the country, and for THAT to be the reason Fergie believes soccer is not thriving is a bit ridiculous... wouldn't you say? So.... why isn't soccer thriving in the U.S.? Sounds like fodder for a new thread.
ALL of which are divided up into Conferences/Divisions and play against regional rivals more often than they play against distant opponents. I wonder why that is?
The Redskin's biggest rivals (at least when I was growing up there) were the Cowboys. Hardly a local/regional rivalry.
I think Sir Alex may be too UK focused. The UK has multiple leagues in England, separate Scottish premier league, Wales....It's normal for Europe, but is probably a bit of a mystery to Americans as to why there isn't a UK wide premiership. We're used to leagues spanning the continent with Canadian teams in most of them. It's odd that he thinks we can't build up rivalries between teams unless the fans are traveling. Again, I guess another European thing.
However, it was/is a divisional rivalry (despite the geographic distance; and, because you're a fan of one of these teams, you surely understand the history of these two team being placed in the same division and the subsequent events that developed the rivalry). And it doesn't change the fact that in the United States, overall, teams play proximate teams more often than they play distant teams. Every successful league in this country does this, more or less. Baseball and NCAA Conferences are the most extreme - and successful - examples. An open suggestion to anyone reading this: Before you die, attend a Cubs v. Cardinals game, in Chicago or St. Louis. Notice how the 60/40 split (no shit, there are that many "away" fans) in the stands creates and sustains an absolutely electric atmosphere in the park. (Additionally, and preemptively, yes, I know about the WAC; so piss off, you're missing the point if you think that disproves the argument.)
I think Sir Fergie's assessment is reasonable. And I agree with him that Beckham alone will not make MLS one of the top 3 major leagues in America. I do think though that Beckham's signing has, and will, make a major impact on MLS and on the sports landscape here.
You seem to be trying to support Ferguson's point, but your statements don't really fit his argument. His point had nothing to do with conferences or divisions; in fact, arguably the most popular soccer league in the world is a single table with twenty teams and ZERO conferences or divisions! Oh, and do any of them play each other more than twice? Many NFL rivalries have very little relationship to regional geography, for example Skins/Cowboys, Raiders/Chiefs, Broncos/Chargers, Colts/Patriots. So once again I say, Ferguson doesn't seem to have a great feel for American sporting culture.
Round and round the argument goes. England is small. Italy is small, Spain is small. All of the teams they play in league are close enough for fan's to travel to quickly and cheaply for a weekend game. Each country is small enough that you get both team's fan support, which is what the article was mainly discussing.
I swear man.. Some of you guys need to stop taking every single word as its said.. maybe read into a little. I know its tough, but make an effort. making points about the exact phrasing is pathetic.. He said they don't travel.. he doesn't necessarily mean not a single person travels, hes talking about seeing lots of away fans at games. Just pathetic to see some of the points brought up here.
The day that a middle aged Scotsman has a clue to what makes U.S. sporting culture tick is the same day WUSA 2.0 expands to 16 teams.