promotion and relegation*

That's really a cheeky statement though. How are you going to raise the standard of the NFL though ? It's already the pinnacle of the sport. The standard is only comparative, and it already is at the top of the scale. In all honesty the standard could increase and we wouldn't know it because there is no comparison for it. That statement isn't exactly fair.

The 3 billion (in pounds) debt of the 20 EPL clubs (as of 2008 mind you), Crystal Palace, Portsmouth, Southampton .... eh, you know what ... check out http://www.clubsincrisis.com/ it's a wonderous trove of clubs that flat out debunk your "financially strong" statement. Oh, and that site quit updating in October of '08. So the dozen or two teams since then aren't even accounted for. Both you and Soccerreform.us are stating a myth. While there are examples of what you're talking about, there are plenty that show that this model isn't the Godsend ya'll claim it to be. Funny too, the tagline of the site I quoted.

Yes, the MLS is successful. There are infinate measures of success. The one you are holding it to not only doesn't apply, but is flat out assinine. You're trying to measure the league as something it simply isn't. The MLS is not a soccer league in the sense that you view it. It is a sports league in the United States. It just happens to be the one that participates in the sport of soccer. This nation is not a soccer nation. It is an (American) football nation. The two biggest revenue sports in this country are both American football (NFL/NCAA). Sure, plenty of people play or have played soccer but the same can be said about golf. We sure as shit aren't a golfing nation either. The simple fact that at best the MLS is viewed as the 5th "major" sport in our country also tells you that we are not a soccer country.

I'm not the one shrooming here sir, you are. Oh, and just for your information the WWE that you cited also has a sporting history (wrestling) that pre-dates last century and was actually the premier sport in the nation into the 50's. The WWE itself has a history that dates back to 1952 ... 15 years before the explosion of professional soccer wonderment you've quoted several times started here in the States.

Despite all of this the league has not only survived, but sustained and grown substantially. For all of your attempts to discredit it, yes that is success.

Proof of league structure, operating procedures, etc ? Otherwise this is just one more in many flat out wrong statements you've made.

Um, this right here actually makes me belive you're an idiot. Doing business the way that, you know, it is done here isn't a product of the culture ? Ok, I'm sorry should I have said "the business culture" then ? But either way, you're wrong again. Culture as defined (the fourth listed definition) The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization. So uh yeah, the culture.

Funny, I didn't ask you for a cheap plug for your site or a bobber in the water to see if I'd bite and go check it out. I asked you to state examples of your prosposed ideas to make the model work here in the United States. You have failed to do it everytime I have asked. That just tells me it's either weak, or you simply haven't wrapped yourself around it. I've never once doubted what this type of system has doen around the world. I've merely pointed out that that isn't how things work here. All I've ever said is that the open league model isn't what our sports are based on, and that our model has given us a successful soccer league. There's no need for it to change.

Except you know, for the MLS ... where it works.

Hey look the broken record returns. So again, I will simply point you to the four, not one, but four trillion dollar, trillion fan, planetary successful leagues we have. Again, 4 trumps 1 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

How ironic you say reality when you simply can't grasp it when dealing with American sporting culture. Have you ever even stopped to wonder why professional soccer took off here without pro/rel ? I mean with the MLS was born why wasn't it instituted on the onset ? Why wasn't the league modeled after this "infinity bazillion fillion dollar/fan/worldwide phenomenal fantasta********ingrific super duper pooper scooper" league system ?

You're absolutely right for once. However, wanting to get out of Kindergarten and passing in order to do so are two completely different things.

 

Perhaps, but with one CCL slot opened partway to lower div clubs, it doesn't change the scenario in that competition. Indeed, does any other country open Champions league play to lower divisions?

Seems to me to be another example of MLS tepid acceptance of international play. In a perfect world, they'd just withdraw.. which they should - like NASL did. And meanwhile, leave the pyramid for clubs that want to climb it. Don't partition it off like Donald Trump would. MLS should take their Cirque de Soccer out on their own.

 

Agrgh! Debt! It's killing soccer! Thanks to our remarkable core of MLS owners who willingly trade quality of play for financial risk, we're all better off!

Seriously, this argument is germane when a top league fails, or maybe mentionable when a top division club goes under. Besides that, it is 100% bunk.

If your enjoyment of the sport is measured by how we can make life easier for owners accustomed to the entitlements of the closed league - and all of the perks of the single entity - than MLS is the greatest league in the world.

Watch them see how they squeeze the best out of underpaid players. See what they can do with a couple of designated players! Whiz Bang Boom! Exploitation can be fun!

US #1 youth sport by participation for three decades
US #1 in World Cup ticket sales
US breaks the top ten in FIFA rankings regularly over the last decade
more Americans watched WC matches in 06 than World Series or NBA Finals

You can try to overwhelm my posts, but the facts are there. MLS is doing a truly crappy job in a fan rich environment.

You are conveniently leaving out the second most popular sports league of the 1920s: ASL. Died in it's own closed league juices.

Lower that bar again. Maybe it works for the people out there who attribute the survival of American club soccer to MLS.

Attendance records set in 1996. TV ratings stagnant. Without reincarnations of NASL teams and franchise fees, MLS would be another in a long line of extinct US soccer leagues.

Business culture. You said it. Not sports culture. Not American culture. Thanks for being succinct.

Really, what you're hoping I'll do is appeal to Bob Kraft, or Phil Anschutz. Once I fail to convince them, you'll call it done.

I have no intentions of convincing owners of other American sports - accustomed to their entitlements and used the perks of the single entity, about the viability of the open league model. It's just not about them.

You have to be commended for trying, though. I won't accuse you of idiocy.

A century of success in domestic leagues when clubs are shielded from international play. A century of failure when applied to soccer. Repeat.

I don't define American sports culture by the entitlements of American pro sports owners. Neither did you when you admitted it was the business culture early in this ramble.

Ouch. But I won't question your education level. As exciting as it is to talk endlessly about the intricate business culture that surrounds MLS, I'd rather concentrate on the sport.

Under their model, clubs are handicapped. Under their model, supporters transition through like guys through the Bunny Ranch. In this system, no one club will be allowed to grow to compete with the best in the world. In their world, lower division clubs are arbitrarily trapped, and sit as disabled as the top clubs.

In a soccer nation.

 

Not really the time to mention that with the way Pompey is looking right now.

Just picking this out randomly, but a book you really need to read is Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism

With all the talk you make about soccer in this country and how it's the most popular youth sport and everything, this book goes into a lot of the topics you bring up here.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Offside-American-Exceptionalism-Andrei-Markovits/dp/069107447X"]Amazon.com: Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism. (9780691074474): Andrei S. Markovits, Steven L. Hellerman: Books[/ame]

 

But why does he want to do that, when what he really wants is to keep telling everyone how his vision will make soccer the number one sport in America, guaranteed. That's why he continues to post with the clarity of a Charlie Brown teacher.

Sixteen posts in three hours. Funny or sad, take your pick.

 

First, an overall statement. I'm tired of constant mentionning of EPL and English football. I understand you Americans have ten times better understanding and knowledge of English football compared to the rest of Europe, if nothing else you speak the same language and can read all the original info about it. But really, Britain is just an island near Europe. English football does not equal European football. If England sunk in the Atlantic, it would be like teams from New Jersey not competing in the US pro sports anymore. There was a time English football was banned from European competitions, and noone noticed they are missing. English football is just a very small part of bigger thing called European football. If anyone wants to discuss European system, I would appreciate if I would see more wider comparisons and understanding of wider picture.



I checked the list. It's a big list. It's a list of BRITISH clubs in crisis. It's a list of British clubs from every league, even from the lowest possible divisions. And I tell you what, this list proves I'm right.

1) The number of British clubs in crisis is bigger than the number of all US clubs from NFL, NBA and MLB combined. Does it tell you something? It tells a story of vitality of open system. There are so many clubs in Britain alone, that the ones in crisis are more numerous that the pro clubs in US alone.

2) If there would be a list of British clubs NOT in crisis, how extensive would this list be? Can you immagine it? 100, 200, 300, 1000, 2000? If all these clubs in crisis die today, and never are resurrected (which in reality doesn't happen), there would still be huge pyramid system in England with hundreds of clubs. Doesn't that proof the vitality and succesfullness of open system.


So, you are worried about British clubs, but you have problems in your own backyard. Not even a week ago Stern said that NBA is producing 400M loss just in this season. Plus, it's rumoured that 27 of 30 clubs are losing money. Unlike you, I am not mentioning it, to prove how this is a final proof of unsuccessfullness of closed system. I'm mentioning it for this comparison: if all English clubs in crisis die today, the football will still be played in Europe in all the complexities of European system of different leagues, cups and competitions. Not only in Europe, it will still be played in England too, there will still be first, second, third, fourth etc division. But if unsuccesful NBA clubs die today, it's the end. THE END. The end of basketball pro sports in US. At least for one season.


The open system is like real life. It's not risk free. Numerous entities are in danger, and numerous entities thrive. You can see death in Nature all around you, go to the woods and you'll see constant death. You'll see dead carterpillar. You'll see dead unrecognized animals carried by ants. You'll see dead leaves. But in the same time you'll see life everywhere around you. That tree with dead leaves beneath is living. Those ants are living. Everything is alive around you. That picture of nature, thriving with all kinds of life, is open system.

Closed system is like life in laboratory. Those rats are maybe living a better life than those rats outside laboratory. But when some desease come, and all the rats die, it's the end. It's the permanent death.

 

The claim was "Most US leagues are interested in improving the quality of the league as a whole".

I just pointed out that there's nothing at all to suggest that's true, depending on how you define "quality".

 

As another poster pointed out, it's hugely misleading to look at the premiership and think it normal. It's not. Abramovich type chairmen are few and far between. The idea that top clubs everywhere are successful due to perennial chronic overspending is just false.

Even in the premiership, the top clubs just have much higher incomes than the rest.

 

On my reading list. Finishing up Colin Jose's book on ASL. By far the best history I've read so far is Goldblatts "the Ball is Round" [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ball-Round-Global-History-Soccer/dp/1594482969"]Amazon.com: The Ball is Round: A Global History of Soccer (9781594482960): David Goldblatt: Books[/ame]

I actually thought the Beckham Experiment was pretty solid. With a few edits, it could have easily been entitled "The MLS Experiment"

 

Is it really false? The top teams in La Liga and Serie A are all operating in the red, or are reliant upon making major transfer sales at the end of the season to break even. That doesn't mean it is happening everywhere and that all leagues are as bad as the English leagues, but the situation in Europe is bad enough that UEFA is threatening to block teams from entering UEFA competitions if they don't get their financial situations under control.

 

Are you really willing to trade quality of play for owner entitlements and shared risk abatements? If MLS owners are such successful businessmen, can't they make their own choices on club quality? Do they really need to seal themselves in a bubble to survive?

 

and, lets be 100% clear here:

MLS is operating in the red.

 

Barcelona and Madrid are currently #1 and #2 in revenues in Europe, and very far from having any financial problems. Madrid took some 100M bank loan in this summer, and I would love to say that they have financial problems, it's my dream that they go bankrupt, but sorry to say, it's not happening yet. But I hope it will. Valencia though is in serious financial trouble.

I don't know about any serious financial problems in top Italian teams. Berlusconi though decided he'll spend less in this season, but Moratti continues to finance his Inter, and it seems he'll never stop.

 

Looking at the collapse of the "open" USL league, meanwhile MLS is expanding and bringing new owners in, I'd have to favor the current owners.

Cite, including SUM?

 

I missed this part. The opposite is true, the top Spanish and Italian clubs are buying clubs, and usually buy for more than they sell. Madrid spent some 300M for transfer fees this summer. Valencia didn't spend anything substantial, but neither did they sell (and they had good offers, around 50M for Villa and some 30M for Silva, and declined regardless of their debt situation, they believe they will recover if they stay competitive, and not if they sell the best players they have). I'm sure top Italian teams spent more than they sold, with exception of Milan, who sold Kaka for some 70M, they didn't buy the equivalent of that amount. But it's stupid to say that Milan has financial problems, the club is owned by the biggest mafioso on Earth, Berlusconi not only owns Milan, he owns Italy.

 

Hmm.. I thought I had read somewhere that Barca and Madrid were losing money, but I could be remembering incorrectly though. So far I've found info that the rest of the league isn't doing to well, La Liga doesn't seem to do TV revenue sharing with RM and Barca getting around $240 million of the approximately $480 million La Liga teams get from TV revenues. Although, I did find that RM spent $312 million on player acquisitions last year. Yikes.

But I know Inter and AC Milan are both losing money. Inter, as you noted, is absorbing its debts quite well, but AC Milan is having problems keeping up its expenses.

 

USL suffered in the same locked down pyramid that MLS tops.

I could cite a hundred authors of articles that say MLS is not making money. Of course, the trap for you is:

1. MLS owners are making money - and our clubs still aren't getting better, at which point I question their commitment to the game.

or

2. MLS is losing money, a decade and a half in, in a country that by many measures is a major soccer nation - at which point I question their business model.

This isn't semantics. MLS says they aren't making money when it suits one argument, and says they are when it suits another. Maybe one of the perks of the single entity, but just another indication of their backassward, conservative growth curve, attendance limiting, club handicapping, profits-before-performance business model.

 

Lets see how the Union does. Then we'll know if it was the mock promotions of Seattle, and future hugely successful mock promotion of Portland, or the MLS marketing strategy.

Philly is a sports saturated town of savvy fans that know crap when they see it.

 

Here's your catch 22:

Is MLS having trouble keeping up with expenses?

 

Just found a link with interesting info about La Liga. Barca, RM, and three other teams are the only ones that ended the 2006/07 season with positive cash flow and with a combined debt of 2.78 billion euros. I wouldn't imagine the 2007/08 and 2008/09 season ended much better, but I'll see if I can find more recent info.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/115085-la-liga-faces-financial-meltdown

So I was wrong about the top teams in La Liga struggling financially, but seems the rest are swirling the bowl.

 

I don't remember when was the last time a Spanish club went bankrupt. Some teams have financial problems, the biggest questionmark being Valencia, some function well. Until now the situation is not perceived as alarming or problematic in Spain, as it is in England, hence I think the problems are minor. But the situation in Spain is unnatural, there is a huge difference between Madrid and Barcelona and the rest of the bunch, the top two are ten times richer (not literally) than the rest. And the gap is getting only bigger. Valencia paid the price of trying to compete with big two and spend as big guys (even though they don't have the income as the big two have), Sevilla and Villareal on the other hand spend very carefully, never above their means, and manage in the last years to get CL spots (which is a very profitable thing) more or less every year.


Besides, Madrid and Barcelona are not privately owned. Every profit remains and remained in the club over decades (it's reinvested in real estates or new players). They try to earn as much money as possible, but only to use it for the sporting means (as there are no owners). Over time both clubs accumulated wealth, and even though Madrid may have some 100 or 200 or 300 M of debt, and even if he's unable to pay off the debt when the time is due (they claim they are able), they can still sell some of their property and solve the situation. So, it's a long way before we can hopefully make Madrid bankrupt.

Milan and Inter (as other important Italian clubs) are owned by owners, who are true fans of the game. They are not owned to be profitable. They are not really losing money in traditional sense, the aficionado owners willingly pay any extra expenses. Juventus is owned by Agnelli family (founders of FIAT), they too treat the club as their child.

 

I know this report. But as I say, the Spanish media don't detect any serious problems, as still no top division clubs went bankrupt recently (it does probably happen in lower divisions). The author of the report is an economy professor in Barcelona. He finds that the problem is in clubs being privately owned, and proposes they shouldn't be privately owned. Completely opposing to American way of running pro sports, btw. Even if this seems intuitively wrong, but I know several cases of Spanish clubs getting in the problems due to bad ownership (even though the opposite is true too - the club succeeding due to good ownership), but no non-privately owned having serious problems. Currently there are 4 non-privately owned clubs in Spanish first division: Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao and Osasuna.

 

No, they didn't. They were an open league with no salary cap. The only thing they couldn't have that MLS has was the three CCL spots. Other than that they were free to spend whatever money they wanted on marketing and players.

And they didn't. Not only did they keep spending under control by going for players who didn't make it in MLS, that wasn't even enough to keep them financially solvent. If, as you continue to state, the U.S. is a soccer country, why did the "open" USL fail? And why are teams trying to get out of USL and into MLS?

And yet, when asked, you didn't. And can you find one that includes SUM as I asked?

Nice try, but those aren't the only two options, as much as your little mind wants them to be. In the real world the rest of us live in the MLS owners, with the inclusion of SUM and their other ancillary revenues from owning teams and stadiums are probably making money. Obviously without access to the books we can't know for sure, but if they were really losing significant amounts of money we wouldn't see new owners so quick to buy in and expansion fees wouldn't be going up so quickly.

At the same time MLS is improving. Go ahead, try watching a game from 1996 and claim that those teams could finish anywhere but bottom in the 2010 season. Again, I know you want a stagnant MLS because it fits your world vuew of "needing" pro/rel, but its not true.

Wow, businesses twisting facts to fit their needs, News at 11!

Cite?

Cite?

Like every single major sports team in this country. Big surprise.