It was a very interesting article indeed. A checked the website of 90 minutes magazine and there seemed to be a good amount of MLS coverage. I recall hearing a while back that the magazine was a very euro-centric magazine, but looking at the past issues, there were a lot of MLS/American player covers. Can anyone lend their opinion of this magazine and is it worth subscribing/picking up?
They should all be able to breathe more easily now then after those attendance figures for MLS's play-off showcase finale.
5 or 10 years? Impossible. We're getting good and soon we will dominate our region. But Brazil keeps getting better as well and I don't see anyone beating them for a long time. Based on some of my travels, I have found that the English fans are the only ones who have a remote clue as to what is going on in the States, since some MLS games are televised in the UK and due to our EPL exports. Most other nations know nothing of US Soccer other than what they see at the World Cups, and until we start having players succeed at the Champions League level and gaining true world-wide renown, we will be seen as nothing but a South Korea in the eyes of non-English nations.
Ha! That article must have scared this dude to death! His post reeks of paranoia. Lucas, I hope you like cheerleaders, clocks that count down to zero, and goals wider'n yo mamma's fat a$$!!!
Our size will help overcome our poor infrastructure. Maybe. How many MLS teams have academies? What proportion of youth players watch some soccer on TV? The Mexican league is easily available all over the place even with just basic cable. What proportion of youth players touch the ball more than 100 times a day, let alone the 500 times needed to become an elite player? US grassroots youth soccer still has lots of baseball/football style micromanagers in both the parent and coach ranks. I wonder if they still outnumber the involved adults who have some understanding of the game.
Here's one reason why MLS can be better than Brazil's league, GDP. America's GDP is ten times the size of Brazil's. America's GDP is about seven times larger than England's. The highest paid soccer player makes 28 million dollars while the hiughest paid American Football player makes 42 million. Out of the 50 highest paid athletes in the world only three play soccer. If MLS gets up there right behind the NBA, NFL, and MLB in salaries then the best soccer players in the world will come here to make 20 million dollars a year.
ding ding ding!!!! we have a winner. and when this happens, everyone will start calling the game $occer.
What I'm really hoping will happen is that we become the top destination for Brazil's young talent, instead of Spain and Italy. If we can get some amazing awesome Brazil young footballers like Robinho playing in MLS, that will put immense pressure on our current talent pool, and as a result the quality of play will go up, only helping the USMNT even more. We're already starting to become the top destination for CONCACAF footballers...we just need to continue moving further south.
The Adu smack down didn't make any news here (England). MLS as a whole rarely makes any news here. Still it is shown on channel 5 between 4-6am on Wed or Thurs mornings. To say that MLS will NEVER be as big as the European leagues is pretty silly. I try not to say never. In 5 yrs? No 10? No. 40 or more? well who knows? could be. Could be sooner. Funny thing is that I did some research and during the 20's and early 30's the best league in the world that attracted the best players by giving them the most money was in the US of all things!!! Then it couldn't survive the Depression and for the most part the US game went under ground for the next 60 years. Most of my Brit friends say that the US will win the World Cup within the next 20 years and probably a lot sooner. I'll be happy to continue what we've done in a very short time. As for the quality of the teams in Brazil and I'll add Argentina funny that they beat the Euro Champions most of the time. It's not always about money. If it was Real Madrid and Man U would have the best teams in the world and at the moment they aren't even the best in their leagues.
just look at how NIKE and it's $$$$$$$$ has affected the world game... some day, they might even spend some of it on the game here!!
Yeah, I have a subscription. It's not bad for being only 1-2 years old. It feels kind of thin, but I think that's partly to do with the subject matter (i.e. American soccer)
interesting article. of course the brits should be concerned. outside of the investors of mls suddenly loosing heart and pulling the plug, mls can only get better. I once argued the validity of mls growing talent to sell off to the big leagues, kinda like brazil, and got roasted for even suggesting such a thing. I still think that's our best bet to becoming financially solvent. I can't belive mls is such a vanity project for the investors that they'll take losses forever. however, the comparison between mens and womens soccer, I'd have to ask about the fate of the wusa. this despite the womans national team winning the world cup and the olympics at some point in their history, not really a valid point. i.e. I'd have to say that's a bad impression the rest of the world may have about usa soccer. but still, so what that our womans nats have had success and have been dominant, comparitevly speaking, when did the rest of the world's womans programs start? if anything, I would think our womans success bodes well for our mens future successes. we will get there, and my guess is, sooner than the rest of the world would like. as for the liverpudlian, are you serious with your rhetoric? in this, the information age, it really is hard to tell what's for real and what's just a smoke screen. its unfortunate that everyone posting on big soccer isn't interested in a sense of community amongst fellow american soccer fans, cause in the grand scheme of things, we're not that big a group.
Like I have said in the past THE FOOTBALL REVOLUTION CONTINUES!!!!!!!!! Just like George Washington lead the Continental Army in the Revolution against King George. Bruce Arena is leading the charge with our Football soliders.
I just don't know why people refuse to accept the obvious. Players don't go to Europe because the teams are older and more prestiged. They go to Europe because they get paid more. If Brazil paid more money, their players would stay there, even if the league had only started 15 minutes ago. If/when MLS ever competes in salary, the dynamics will change. Seeing that we have the worlds largest economy, your use of the word "never" is woefully premature. get over yourself anyway. the article wasn't written by an American, nor did anyone posting go on a rant about MLS being as good as Serie A or La Liga prior to you going on your unintelligent rant. It's very nice of you to go conjure up an argument that wasn't even made, attribute it to the people here, bash it, and then skulk around thinking that you did something. oyyy veyy.
glossing over the minor details such as the US' GDP (per capita) being 5 times that of Brazil, not 10, and 1.5 times that of the UK, not 7, would you care to explain why poorer countries like Brazil and Argentina produce so many good players if GDP is such a vital factor? Argentina's population is about the same as California's. two problems with this. One is that, sadly, football does seem to be sliding slowly towards some kind of elite european superleague. The champions league cash is ramming a wedge between the haves and the have nots, and should it ever become a proper league, the TV money would be huge, far in excess of today. If such a league existed, it could well have a TV deal bigger than anything the US could offer, even with an NFL sized MLS. Secondly, it relies on MLS becoming as big as the NFL. Now maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that prediction being touted too often. It is incredibly hard to gauge opinions on MLS over here for the very basic reason that people just aren't thinking about it, and consequently aren't talking about it. There are an awful lot of leagues out there and MLS clubs don't really make the news enough to get noticed above all the others. Its main angle is probably one of curiosity, after the boom/bust of NASL and the famed hatred of the sport in the country.
Nope, I doubt that will ever happen. The NFL is now the league of America's 'new' national pastime. MLS does not ever need to become the biggest and most popular league in America in order to be successful.
Some good points here. Still a lot of soccer wannabes coaching youth. The next phase of our development will be kids starting to work with the ball daily, without prompting, just cause they want to. IT WILL HAPPEN. How soon, dunno, but sooner than everyone thinks.
The figures I've found had Americas GDP at over 10 trillion, England's 1.5, and Brazil's at 1.3 trillion http://www.wallstreetview.com/GDPRankings.html Now I thought Brazil's was only 1 trillion so I'm a bit off there but I'm not even close to being as wrong as you. There are 55 players on an NFL roster so MLS only needs to have half as big a payroll to pay about as much. Out of the top 50 highest paid athletes in the world I think ten play in the NBA (Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Garnet, Yao, McGrady, Jordan, Grant Hill, Lebron, Vince Carter, Kidd, Rasheed Wallace, Penny Hardaway, Andre Miller, 15 I guess I was wrong), 13 baseball players, if MLS gets just 4 players on that list it would be the best paying league in the world, considering there are only 3 anywhere else in the world. Your point about Argentina and Brazil being better even though they're poorer than the US is laughable. As far as TV deals go I would say that a Euro superleague deal would not be more valuable in Europe than the NFL deal is in America. The reason is that would Leeds' fans or Atletico Madrid fans care about the super league when the teams they support aren't in it. Most soccer fans in Europe are busy supporting their local teams while the NFL has far more at home viewers than in Europe. The superleague deal would be more valuable than the NFL's worldwide though.
George Washington"s great grandfather was born in Newcastle, England and George himself fought for the British...( against the useless french) The revolutionary war should really be called the "First American Civil War"...as it was actually waged between British bred peoples on both sides of the atlantic...and the ones on this side ( British bred) just would not accept being subsurvient...to anyone...it's in the blood....
Yes sir I am aware of the french & Indian war. But once King George over stepped his bounds Washington looked at himself as did most of the colonists of this great land and they felt they were no longer British Subjects. We truely never had an identity till after the Revolutionary War was won. Washington felt more of a Virginian than an Englishman and as an American after the war was won. I shall Quote Benjamin Franklin from the Movie musical 1776. Which of course was said in Congress at Independence Hall before the Declaration of Independence was constructed by Thomas Jefferson. This was the discussion between Benjamin Franklin & John Dickenson. Both are from Pennsylvania (Guess which one favored Independence ). This long quote is started after Dickenson banged his walking stick on the table against John Adams of Massachusetts. BF: Please Mr. Dickenson must you start banging, how's a man to sleep. JD: Forgive me Dr. Franklin for when you start talking how does a man stay awake. Will be quiet sir as we all perfer that you remain asleep. BF: If I am to be called an englishman sir then I perfer to remain asleep. JD: Oh why the english doesn't seem to mind. BF: Nor would I, for if given the full rights of an englishman would be calling an Ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but would like to have restored what's rightfully his. So sir I am aware of the situations of blood between our founding fathers and their relatives who are from England. In all honesty I have no quarles with the father nation that allowed their subjects to colonize this land. I hope to one day to visit England and explore London as well as the lovely country side that I have seen on travel shows and film. I also don't believe that there should be any comparisons between the Premiership & MLS. We are only 9 years old sir. That in my mind is an accomplishment. Living this long and still fighting to be seen & heard. Compare us all you want to 2nd Divison & 3rd Division of the FA. Personally I don't care. Advancing to the Quarterfinals of the 2002 World Cup & being one hand ball call & penalty spot away from forcing golden goal on Germany to me is hugh. When all 12 clubs have their own grounds and doesn't have to share the NFL stadiums anymore, then we shall be strong financially. Talent has grown here in US Soccer, now it's time to build on the rest. I'm not going to force it down your throat sir. All I ask is that you respect this league. If you wish to be a supporter for one of these 12 sides next season, I will welcome you with open arms. If not I will shake your hand and say thanks for the conversation. But regardless we don't care if you feel threatened. The Football Revolution still continues on for the United States. Our goal is to earn respect. So far I believe that we have.
I went on GDP per capita, as I stated. it would also need a TV deal half the size. To achieve that MLS would need to ne rather more than just accepted, it would have to be massive. It would need the play-off final to be viewed by what, 50 millions+ of people? It would probably have to be the No.2 sport in the country. That would take a massive shift in opinion. Not really. The 'spike' in top players salaries compared to average players salaries in the premiership for example, is nothing like what you get in baseball, with one or two star players getting up to 10 times the salary of the average squad player at their club. Even young reserve team premiership players who have never made a first team appearence can be on $500,000 a year. I think that's daft personally and your way makes far more sense, but that's the way it is. ...did I mention the US? There are countries in the world far richer than Argentina with far poorer teams. If GDP (per capita or per country) is so vital, then they should be a very mediocre team. So what is laughable about it? How is a high GDP going to help develop a strong talent pool? Again, unless you are tipping MLS to become as big as the NFL, then it's a pointless comparison. And I think the fact that there is even currently a fair chuck of money washing about the champions league for a limited number of matches rather disproves the idea that fans wouldn't watch matches involving other clubs. They do.
I think you two are arguing about the GDP with completely different issues. GDP has little to do directly with how young players are developed, this is obvious. However, I would agree that keeping those developed players long term in the country is more a product of GDP. As for the Champions League I think you are right. People will always watch good football regardless of who they support. How many of us watch the thing even though we support the MLS? There will always be a huge market for this kind of a league.
To put a bit of perspective on how wealthly MLS (or a club in MLS to be exact) would need to become to be able to be more tempting than the premiership for example, take those champions of mediocrity, Tottenham. They get just over $30 million a year in TV revenue. This figure is far higher than would be feasible based on viewing figures alone - it's not advertising revenue that makes the figure that high, it's that live premiership football is the cornerstone of SKY's satellite TV package and it drives the rest of their business. Without it, SKY TV would collapse. So even if the US could get equal viewing figures, it wouldn't get the same size TV deal. Ticket prices are also high - the average at White Hart Lane is about $60. Given an average crowd of about 35,000 and 19 home games a year, it works out at a basic $40 million a year in ticket sales + any extra from cup games. If you add to that sponsorship, merchandising and executive box sales, it'd be a conservative estimate to add an extra $10 million on top of that, giving around $80 million a year. Now take DC United for example. Based on this seating chart I say the average price paid for a seat is probably about $20 http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/dcu/stadium/ I'll be generous and say 15 league games and 2 play-off games, with crowds of 17,250 a week. That doesn't quite reach $6 million. Unless MLS get a proper TV deal, at those ticket prices DC would need to average 230,000 at every game to generate the same revenue. Even with a TV deal, as it is never going to be the cornerstone of any US-based TV empire, the viewing figures would need to be very very big indeed to match that $30 million. NBA/NHL/MLB may get more currently per club (I haven't checked) but they also all play a lot more matches. Anybody not agree that it would take a massive growth in MLS to match Tottenham's turnover? Well the thing is Tottenham are not in the big leagues of revenue makers. Biggest of all, Man Utd, had a total income of $300 million. These were the top 20 in 2003. All figures in £ (£1 = $1.75) 1 (1) Manchester United 175.8 2 (2) Juventus 152.7 3 (4) AC Milan 140 4 (6) Real Madrid 134.7 5 (3) Bayern Munich 113.8 6 (12) Inter Milan 113.6 7 (8) Arsenal 104.6 8 (5) Liverpool 104.4 9 (13) Newcastle 97.1 10 (7) Chelsea 93.6 11 (10) Roma 92.6 12 (15) Borussia Dortmund 86.7 13 (9) Barcelona 86.3 14 (n/a) Schalke 04 82.9 15 (16) Tottenham 66.9 16 (11) Leeds 64.3 17 (14) Lazio 62.2 18 (17) Celtic 60.8 19 (20) Olympique Lyonnais 58.9 20 (n/a) Valencia 56.3 ...and that really is the sort of competition MLS would face if it had to out-muscle european clubs financially. But never say never. After all, less than 20 years ago football in England looked doomed. It was predicted that by now crowds in the top divison would average about 10,000 and there'd only be about 30, if that, professional teams left.