Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MLS: Expansion' started by galperin, Oct 9, 2003.
Pretty good news...
I like the fact that they're not going to rush a team into San Diego to satisfy Chivas. And it's good, if as stated, they're not going to change the international rules. But we all know about MLS loopholes. Overall I think it's a good thing that the team is not jumping through hoops for Chivas. The other good news is the ending of the era of putting MLS teams into big pointy ball stadiums. I never had a good feeling about Reliant. Probably a great facility, but so is Invesco in Denver, and it's a pretty sucky place to watch a game.
"I love the idea of Mexican teams playing in Major League Soccer. I know that it is only a matter of time," said Guillermo Cañedo White, the newest member of the executive committee of CONCACAF..."
This is pretty dangerous ground. How can a league establish its own identity and have foreign teams playing in it? By putting off expansion until 2005, the league will probably be in a stronger position, especially with more new stadiums on the way. This might very well be remembered as the year that MLS wiped away the aura of desperation and began to assert itself.
MLS cannot become Mexico's AAA league, where 'Mexican' teams exist primarily to feed the senior team in the MFL. This does MLS no good at all, and it must be clearly undertsood by all concerned parties from the beginning.
The only loophole I can see for Chivas is that all special roster slots -- the SIs, the junior internationals (whatever they are called), etc. -- could be filled by Mexican players, and players with green cards could fill the rest of the roster, along with US players of Mexican heritage.
The SI allowance could be increased to 4 players, but that should be pan-league or Chivas would be perceived as having an unfair advantage. In reality that may or may not prove true; we all know the variable value of the SIs that have passed through MLS.
Can 18 MLS-level players be found to fill such a roster?
Of course, there is the other green-and-gold loophole -- money.
I definately flt as though letting SD start in 2004 looked desperate. It also looked like we were being bullied. This will ensure the best stadium deal possible. this will also ensure a good ticket drive as well as well though out marketing and such.
I am all for Club America in San Antonio (where they are being wooed) but really I think two MFL associated teams is plenty. as far as establishing league identity. well that is very American to have 2 Mexican teams. I am suprised Celtic doesnt have a team in Boston
I also think if Cleveland does not have its stadium ducks in a row for 2005, I would like to see the two mexican clubs come in together. Instant rivalry as well as an instant built in fan base. not to mention both Alamodome and Qual com are desperate for tennants. It would seem that they could both get amazing stadium deals.
This I belive would allow for a strong 2nd wave of expansion into Philly, Houston, Cleveland, Seattle. And it should be announced just before they go into negotiations for the new TV contract in 2006.
If Cleveland is serious, he could have his stadium under construction in 2006 and open up play in a just completed SS. by that time mcNair may have come around as well as Laurie, and I mention Seattle because well they are always worth mentioning.
way to go MLS, gongrats for hitting puberty and getting some sack.
So is Atletico Madrid going to be the AA farm team of Chivas Guadalajara? And then Saprissa of Costa Rica will be the single A team? And what will happen to Chivas' development team, 2nd division Tapatio? Will they be Rookie League team?
Gosh, I'm sure glad that Chivas MLS has leapfrogged one of the most successful clubs in all of Europe. That says a lot.
It doesn't say $hit b/c the whole notion is ridiculous!
I don't know. Did somebody say that Athletico Madrid was going to be a Mexican team with primarilt Mexican Players? Did Chivas ask La Liga to change their rules so they could bring more Mexican players into Athletico Madrid? If you've been watching the news, both of those things have happened with the Chivas MLS entry. Your post doesn't make any sense.
All MLS players are signed by MLS. No matter how many Mexicans Chivas signs, making them a farm team to Guadalajara would be rather difficult.
Do you honestly think that Chivas MLS asked for more foreign players so that it can "develop" talent for its Guadalajara team?
What they want to do is build a Latino-flavored club. But is will NOT be a farm team. There are a lot cheaper ways to accomplish that. Vergara is attempting to build a futbol empire, and MLS fits into the plan b/c of potential for PROFIT, not b/c it'll be good for Guadalajara's development.
The notion of MLS being a farm team for foreign clubs is as misconstrued as the perception that MLS is a feeder league for EPL.
You know, I never got the impression he wanted to make Chivas USA a farm team. I just think he sees an opportunity to make money in the US. Nothing wrong with that - it's just that he doesn't seem to care much about anything else.
Amen to that brotha! I don't have a problem with a guy making money either. it's just that i am really looking at it from a perspective of LEAGUE growth and not just a single teams growth. And for the LEAGUE, it seems to me that making MLS appeal to the masses is what will help most. That is one of the big reasons that soccer gets no respect here now. Guys like Jim Rome continually bash soccer as a game for "foreigners." If we give people like this further ammunition by, as White suggested, having Mexican teams in MLS, this is not a good thing. Will those Mexican teams draw their fans. Certainly. Will it help present the game to the masses. Certainly not.
Re: Pretty good news...
I think the correct description is having foreign players playing in it. The teams would still be MLS teams. Think about the NHL. Did anyone really complain that there were Canadian teams and Canadian players in a sport loved by Canadians? I see the same thing for soccer in the Southern direction. Why not change the foreign player rules to say three non-Canadian-American-Mexican players?
Re: Re: Pretty good news...
this is a league in the US, for the US, used to develop US players.
and it's an entirely different situation than the NHL for NUMEROUS reasons.
Re: Re: Pretty good news...
No, my description was correct. Nobody is worried about having foreign players in MLS. But for a MLS team to publically identify itself with a foreign team and announce its intent to mostly use players from that country is wrong. The NHL equivalent would have been for the Phoenix Coyotes to call themselves the Phoenix Canucks and use only Canadian players. And as for changing the foreign player rules, does your proposal include the MFL accepting US citizens as domestic players?
Again, to which "masses" do you refer? Footie doesn't need to convince the footie masses about the game. Did we need Jim Rome in order to pull off the most successful WC ever? The reason why we don't 'em is b/c there is dormant footie fan in the country as it is. who cares what their citizenship status is? It is entirely false to assume that MLS needs to convert the 40 something year old coach potato to give up the big 4. MLS needs to convince the immigrant (fans of EPL, Bundes, Serie A, MFL, etc.) that it plays good soccer. It needs to ENCOURAGE fan clubs to blossom and get the stadiums rocking, so that fans from nations that aren't necessarily powerhouses but know that the atmosphere makes the game, that MLS is creating great atmosphere.
Ppl will begin to look beyond the "foreigness" of footie when they see that it is a top-flight league. Slowly but surely, that is the goal: to reach a solid level of soccer play. Then immigrants and non-immigrants alike will become more interested.
Is it really that big a deal to have an odd number of teams for 2004? I can see the pluses for waiting, but if everything can be in place (like Qualcomm) then why let an odd number of teams stop you? If you think expanding by 2 teams in 2005 sounds good, how does expanding twice in 2 years sound!?! Definitely a positive spin to that too.
In any case, the "Mexican teams in MLS" quote bugged me. I've no problem with them trying to get as many Mexicans as possible on the team as long as they're within the rules, but I hope I can be happy calling it MY San Diego MLS team too, as I expect the team will have a few Mexican- AMERICANS on it.
Are there 20+plus million Canadians living in the USA? That's the difference.
What's wrong is that Mexicans are by far the #1 footie fan group in this country, and yet few major Anglophone newspapers print scores of MFL. Between SD and the LA basin, the LA Times serves about 17 million ppl, 7 million + being of Mexican origin. Yet, when 40% of So Cal. is talking about NOTHING but the Clausura championship, we get one sentence devoted to it. The SF Chronicle prints the FRENCH LEAGUE STANDINGS! But says nothing of MFL. The message conveyed to US Latinos over and over and over again in more than one sector of society, is that we don't count when it comes to US brand of futbol, despite the fact that we are far and away the #1 consumers of the sport.
What is wrong is that the US Soccer has done little to encourage development of the barrios, US coaches have failed to recognize the necessity to incorporate tendencies and strengths of ALL the ppl that play soccer in this country, not just the suburban elite clubs.
If USMNT and the USWNT want to continue to succeed and take it to the next level, they MUST begin to look beyond the system that has worked up until now. In other words, we need to start making inroads in the barrios. (In the women's case, this will take more time b/c Latinas don't play as much as Latinos.)
Chivas MLS will try to amend that: market directly to Latinos, incorporate them in US Soccer, build up the feeder system in the inner-city. In other words, Chivas will actually DO somehting to bring this marriage between whitebread American soccer and Latino soccer.
Who benefits? Everybody.
Having 11 teams in a league would be a scheduling nightmare. Every week, one team would have a bye. Either MLS would have to have fewer games or lengthen the season or have more mid-week games. None of these options are really appealing.
As much as I would like to see an expansion team next year, I think it would be best to have two teams come in in 2005.
Nice article. A lot of information...
Here is my take:
- I agree that waiting to 2005 makes better sense for adding two more teams. However, I question whether Cleveland will be ready by 2005.
- I'm glad that they turned down the larger stadiums. We will see whether that continues...
- I don't see Chivas USA being a feeder to the MFL. It's a great business opportunity. Simple as that...
- I loved this statement in reference to the foreign player limit rule:"Garber said the rule will not be altered, but maybe a loophole will be found for the new team." Typical MLS...
- Nothing new with respect to Club America and Quakes.
At this moment, I'm still in a wait and see mode before getting too excited about expansion.
Yeah, sure. And while they're at it, do think they could find a cure for cancer and bring about peace in the Middle East? I hate to be the voice of cynicism, but to me, Chivas USA is a business proposition, pure and simple. They are attempting to buy into another business, MLS, and they're doing it to make money. I think you're going a bit far trying to tie this into the liberation of 20 million downtrodden hispanics in the US.
If Vargera wants to buy an MLS team then so be it. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to invest in the league. That being said I have a huge problem with Chivas USA, the same as I would if it was Arsenal USA. It sounds like a second class team trying to make good on an established name. It's like Euro-Disney.
And the idea of changing rules to appease this guy is stupid. If he wants to build a franchise in the US he should do it within the same rules as everyone else. If they think that giving development spots and SI spots to Mexicans is the way they want to go then fine but to base player selection along any type of ethnic lines is wrong.
True, but we could go to a single table for a year, with each team playing every other team 3 times, for a total of 30 games (same as we have now). We've had two divisions and three divisions, why not try one for a year.
BTW, I'm not a huge backer of the single table, though I know many out there are.
That would do nothing to solve the scheduling problem.
Re: Re: Article: expansion off till '05
Picking up the downtrodden, dusting off the bruises, and then putting in the infrastructure necessary for them to CONSUME is how to make money.
Take a look at McDonalds ads in 3rd world countries: frickin' amazing how they try to make money on the downtrodden. Example, Brazil: "Aqui, tudo mundo come" = "Here, everybody eats". What's implied is that in the rest of Brazil, social class differences affect the distribution and consumption of food. I think it's noteworthy that the President made it a major goal to assure that w/in 4 yrs. every Brazilian will have enough food on the table. What McD's is saying is that in their restaurants, social differences will not affect consumption, unlike the rest of society.
Watch Spanish t.v. in this country; McD's presents itself in a way that includes Latinos in the very American custom of eating at McD's, not setting them apart.
I'm not asking you to have Tito get you a tissue, just pointing out the reality that the Latino market has different interests and concerns. Being included is one of them.
If there was a solid group ready to go: I/O, SSS, $$$; the inconvenience of an odd number of teams would be negligable(sp).
Who do you think the masses are? Do you not include hispanic americans in the masses? I believe that the latest census showed that Hispanic-Americans now comprise the largest minority in the country. Every other major sport is desprately trying to obtain that market, and you gotta believe that if MLS does it right they will win that war. (Ignore Rome, he is ignorant) Don Garber has made it very clear that there are 3 major target markets that MLS needs to pursue: the core soccer audience, the ethnic audience and the youth audience. While on its face it might appear that a Vegara owned team is only targeting the ethnic audience, I am certain that a businessman of his calibre is not going to limit himself to just one potential target market. Will his team perhaps market more aggessively towards the hispanic community? Perhaps? Will he try to tweak the rules to have as many Mexican and Mexican-American players on the roster? Perhaps. Is this bad? No, if in doing so, this then familiarizes more Mexican Americans households with MLS then that is a good thing. If it gives MLS more credibility among Mexican-American households, then this is a good thing. If it allows some Mexican-American "Chivas" haters to become fans of let's say the Earthquakes, so they can support a team that is a rival of Chivas USA, then that is a good thing. If it allows Mexican Americans households to embrace MLS teams as they embrace their teams in Mexico, then this is a good thing.
Who cares what the likes of Jim Rome have to say.