Eric Wynalda's "Howard Beale moment": FSC employees rant against MLS at the NSCAA Convention

I was just outlining the general idea of an 8-week or so winter break from about mid-Dec to mid-Feb, and how yes that would avoid the African Cup of Nations.

It amazes me that there are posts apparently arguing against the idea of a "winter season" MLS when it has been stated several times that a fall-spring schedule that MLS (hypothetically) would/could adopt would certainly include a long mid-season break (to avoid numerous things to include some of the MLS markets' coldest weather as well as things like the NFL post-season and the ACN).

Now I don't actually know if fully avoiding each and every Fifa international date on the calendar each year will be a requirement or a goal for MLS operationally in the future, but a US/Canada league could certainly prioritize which Fifa dates/windows are most important to avoid (i.e. the World Cup ahead of the Asian Cup).

Avoiding all the dates on Fifa's international match calendar would be difficult, but a league wouldn't need to take off all of July to do so.

And starting the domestic league seasons in the spring as opposed to starting them in the fall doesn't necessarily make "Fifa-date-avoidance" any more or less difficult. (but would there be other, competitive and operational benefits to a league that established a summer primary transfer window, aligned its seasons with the CCL, and concluded its seasons in milder/warmer weather?)

From a scheduling and operational perspective, if (as in 2010) MLS can take a 2-week break in June and yet still have an ~13-14 week winter off-season, would it be impossible for the league to extend that summer down-time (up to ~7 weeks) while shortening their winter off period (down to about ~8 weeks)?

Would that require the league to make other operational changes (such as playing fewer regular season matches than the 34 now, and/or have the league have to trim/alter their post-season format)?

Certainly more questions than answers, but there's nothing wrong with asking these types of questions and honestly considering the possible answers to them.

 

Charlie Boehm and Jimmy Larue have posted a fairly complete transcript of Wynalda's remarks. I'm still unimpressed. His revolutionary thinking is the stuff of Big Soccer MLS N&A for the past decade (pay players more, accept all transfers, move the schedule) sprinkled with macho challenges and outright lies (he says Arsenal-Tottenham did a 6M TV number - he was off by 4 million).

 

people being unimpressed by Wynalda and/or his comments isn't new territory.

thanks for the link.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to our coverage of the 2012 WPS Draft, our transcription begins about 15 minutes into the scheduled 4 p.m. start time of Wynalda’s talk, where he’s advocating for greater incentives for MLS players. We've used ellipses where the sound was muddled, the crowd was laughing or if part of the recording was unclear. Thus this is not a full transcript, but a strong majority of Wynalda's remarks are contained here.​

is there anything with which that WPS can't interfere?

note, Part III of the unofficial/partial transcript may be the best read, when Will Kuhns engages Wynalda in the Q&A:
http://www.nationalsoccerwire.com/news/458/15574

maybe he (stupidly) was mixing cume viewers (for the EPL match) with a comparison to (a bad estimation of) the average audience of MLS Cup?

whatever his specific thinking or talking points, he's fairly uninformed and/or trying to make/support his points with inaccurate and misleading statements.

 

Thanks for posting. My favorite exchange:

"Wynalda: I didn’t even need to hear what Nelson [Rodriguez] had to say. I’ve heard it 16 times…"
"Kuhns: You’ve repeated several parts of it incorrectly so far."

 

You know, for all the guff Wynalda has taken in this thread (and rightly so, most of it), I agree 100% with every freaking word he says about point bonuses.

Also, this was pretty funny, in a gallows humor sort of way: "When we tried to prepare for the World Cup in 1998 -– we’re trying to forget it. Everybody else hate that one? That was fun to watch, right? 3-6-1? I was one by the way [loud laughter in the room]. I was looking for a palm tree on that island. I think I found it. His name is Jurgen Koller. That was horrible."

 

Funny how you declare something as "certain" that hasn't even been officially proposed yet. You have no more idea than any other poster what a MLS schedule would look like if they were to move to fall-spring. Not to mention that while most people that even consider the idea do include a mid-winter break not all of the proposals posted here on BigSoccer do.

Given that one of the reasons commonly cited for this change is to get the players playing longer, the fact that this would almost certainly shorten the season in one form or another means it doesn't really achieve the goal.

Given that my response you jumped in on was to the point that MLS needed to take international dates off because:

Then to achieve that MLS would have to schedule around all the FIFA competitions. Otherwise you're then just picking and choosing which players are OK to lose and which aren't, something MLS is already doing.

 

and in this thread (and elsewhere, such as the You Be the Don "Wynalda's thoughts on MLS Schedule" thread), Wynalda's comments (crazy and otherwise) are being discussed: "You stop for two months – you take a break."

the proposals/ideas that make the most sense, imo, and are worth supporting certainly do include a mid-winter break. and in this thread, it's not too much to ask that readers/posters have a general understanding of what Wynalda is actually suggesting, even in amongst all of his ranting.

(it's predictable I guess that posters here would regularly harp on any odd post/comment that suggested, stupidly, imo, such things as playing in Oklahoma (in the middle of January, no less) or be overly concerned with avoiding the African Cup of Nations dates. But to me, this thread has contained numerous references to "Wynalda's schedule" and his recognition that a long mid-season break, "like in Germany" or even longer, would be required should MLS ever want to actually go fall to spring. people easily get sidetracked by the craziest comments/interjections, and often gloss over some relatively broad and easy to see concepts.)

it may be one of the "goals" (or possible benefits) but it isn't the only "goal" that could be targeted by altering the MLS season schedule.

and you yourself said a fall-spring schedule could be the same length as a spring-fall season that MLS currently uses.

yes, likely at the very best, any change to the schedule would maintain the same number of weeks currently used by MLS each calendar year. (although, admittedly MLS has been expanding its "season footprint" in recent years, so we don't truly know how big of a footprint an MLS of the future would actually need or want to implement.)

it certainly depends on how they actually would set the fall-spring schedule, if they ever opt to actually do that.

there are lots of reasons for and against and issues surrounding this topic. "getting the players playing longer" is no more or less important than many other (possible) effects of such a "new, summer off-season schedule for MLS," including but not limited to: competitive and operational benefits for a league that established a summer primary transfer window, aligned its seasons with the CCL, and concluded its post-season playoffs in milder/warmer weather.

all fair points. (and is it a fair question to ask if MLS could do a "better job" of making those decisions if it weren't playing straight through spring to fall?)

(and again, my earlier response was just outlining the general idea of an 8-week or so winter break from about mid-Dec to mid-Feb, and how yes that would avoid the African Cup of Nations.)

and if MLS wanted (or needed) to prioritize which FIFA dates it could (or begrudgingly wound) schedule in conflict with, I would suggest avoiding June would be at the top of that list. (others, especially those on the MLS BoG, might always have different ideas.)

avoiding the World Cup dates and the Gold Cup dates, likely are (or could become) higher priorities for the MLS league schedule than being certain to always schedule outside of every possible Fifa window for events like the African Cup of Nations, the Asian Cup or even Copa America.

 

Was there an open bar at this convention? Wynalda sort of sounds like he's had a few.

 

You might be on to something there with that question.

from the tread starting link:

 

1. These bonuses already exist.
2. It's less true than it used to be, but (most) MLS players have a huuuuge incentive to perform. They typically don't have guaranteed contracts and play in a league with a cap. If you don't perform to your cap hit, you'll get cut. That's obviously a much bigger incentive to perform than anything Waldo can come up with.
3. Point bonus money isn't free. If you make the incentive large enough to matter, you've cut into everyone's pay.

Point bonuses are a very old topic. Whenever it came up we'd tease out how it would actually (likely) work in practice. For me, EVERY SCHEME either provided a trivial incentive because the money was too small, or too dramatically cut into regular pay to be realistic (with the concomitant effect of decreasing a player's incentive to not get cut.)

I don't think the number of guaranteed contracts have increased enough to matter, especially since the players on guaranteed contracts are typically higher paid, and therefore less incentivized by getting an extra $200 per point or whatever. But I'll listen to you if you want to make the case.

 

He thought he needed to use the conversion rate to get his number

 

I pointed out to him his error on the TV rating. His immediate response "Try again." So I sent him a second link and clearly spelled it out. He finally admitted he was wrong, "we'll see how the game goes this upcoming weekend. Then we will have another conversation. Thanks for correcting me."

Re: point bonuses as Scott brought up and dave addressed. I wish they had the full transcript of that because in other mediums, Eric has said that MLS doesn't have them. They do. Whether they are enough is up for debate, but there are win bonuses in the CBA. We just don't have the copy of the contract Garber promised to actually debate this with any certainty. This time he did seem to be saying they needed to be increased, which is a more sane line of discussion. But when he basically says everyone is wrong and he is right, he undercuts any notion of seriousness.

 

You're right, in order to work, point bonuses have to be more substantial than they are now, which I think was Wynalda's point (but I could be wrong about that): More money going specifically for them, rather than just raising the number of the salary budget.

I do believe, however, that point bounses would be a better incentive to put forth maximum effort as Wynalda describes than just the fear implicit in non-guaranteed contracts. They are a more immediate and quantifiable goal, one that exists for and in every game. A player's general contract situation isn't really in the front of his mind as much earlier in the season, or even later in the season if his performance until then has been sufficient to not get cut. In both situations, a player can take a game off now and then, and not suffer individually and immediately for it; with point bonuses (ones that matter), not so much.

And, it wouldn't exclude those with guaranteed contracts from having to play and practice as hard and well as they can. I liked Wynalda's Donovan example, whether it's actually true or not.

Plus, I just generally think that positive reinforcement should be part of the equation. The stick is way more effective when combined with the carrot, and vice versa.

 

if that conversation does happen, see if he'll note and recognize the different circumstances between an EPL game broadcast for free over the air at 11am ET as a lead in to NFL Conf Championship coverage and the slightly different packaging for the MLS Cup game from a Sunday Night (on cable) up against a prime-time Sunday Night NFL game on NBC -- and how those may affect potential audience sizes in the US.

it won't be shocking that the ManU/Arsenal game will get better viewership than a LAG/Houston game, but there are also relative scheduling and tv items that need to be noted.

agreed.

 

Totally. I love when some people get a hard-on for the EPL ratings. It should not be shocking that the world's most popular league gets better ratings than MLS.

 

generally agree with these points.

and certainly I would like Wynalda's "Donovan example" if it is indeed true (of course not knowing exactly what he was getting at or which practices/instances he was specifically citing).

although it is a bit strange when Wynalda (truthfully/accurately or not) is calling out players like Donovan and Pope.

 

Well yeah, there is that. I guess I tend forgive some of his more self-important bluster, just because he's an ex-player who is obviously passionate about growing the sport even after he's left it on the field. And even though I think that some of his ideas are somewhat misguided and on flimsy rational ground.

Which is odd, because I'm usually pretty intolerant of illogical, intemperate blowhards.

 

Really? I hadn't picked up on that.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pablo Chicago again.

 

And all of this presumes that the American players, who still and likely always will make up the bulk of the rank and file in this league, don't play hard, and that if they played harder, they'd necessarily play better.

Or that you'd recognize "harder" play when you saw it. About the only thing the American player has going for him in a broader sense (with some notable exceptions) is how hard he plays. That's "the American style." If getting the extra two points for the win instead of the draw is worth an extra $400 for him (or for the eleven guys out there), what will "maximum effort" then look like? Running faster? After 80 or 85 minutes? Throwing your body around? The basketball players who dive after loose balls and go into the scorer's table to do it will always get praise from the crowd, but they're also risky unnecessary injury - in which case they won't be able to play hard, or well, or at all.

"Maximum effort" is one of those phrases thrown out there like "if marketed correctly" that no one really bothers to define because it either wouldn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny or it would be too much work to actually define. It's like the notion that if you paid Kelly Gray more, he'd be a better player.

We applaud effort. You pay your money, you want the people involved to give their best effort. I get that. But if playing "harder" means being more physical or taking risks that could lead to, instead of you getting that $400, the guy on the other team who doesn't play "harder" but takes advantage of the mistake that you made because you played "harder" gets the $400, is that what you want? I mean, it's great if you're a fan of the other team. Not so great if you're not. I've been led to believe players play for the badge or the people behind the goal, or whatever supernatural bullshit the advocate of mythology wants you to believe at that particular moment.

So define for me, please, this notion of "playing harder" and what that would actually look like in practice (or is it like porn, you'll just know it when you see it?). Then tell me how, at the end of the day, this is not still a zero-sum game. You can scratch and claw for every point to avoid relegation if you want, but somebody's still going down. You can give "maximum effort" if you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get more results. Because our sport - unlike others - can be dictated by one team or the other if they simply decide not to play. In which case you can run around giving maximum effort all day long in search of your $400. If the other team's going to put nine behind the ball and clear it into touch for the last 10 minutes, your efforts may get you applause from the fans, but may not result in more wins.

 

While many of Waldo's facts are inaccurate or completely missing, I tend to either agree or be fascinated by much of the gist of what he was talking about:

The lack of "professionalism" (read: incentives or money to play) from the earliest age groups all the way through (youth soccer, club soccer, high school, college, USL, A-League, NASL) up to MLS and the National team setup is what ails soccer in this country.

The sense of entitlement that the pay to play system gives and the fact that there is no reason for kids to work hard to be the best or strive to be in MLS.

The problem is, there is no easy answer to these issues, which was loud and clear as Eric stumbled when trying to answer the question. At least he's trying to get the discussion going though.

 

No it doesn't. There is a lot of area between not playing hard and not playing as hard as you can. The better part, while admittedly elusive, comes from practicing harder and/or more diligently with the new incentive of significant point bonuses. That was the lesson of the Donovan example/possible slander.

Don't you? In soccer, it's particularly easy to spot a player not running hard late in a game, and not that uncommon.

Getting back to defend late in the game, making a run for a through pass instead of waiting for the ball to be played to your feet, going up to challenge for a ball in the air. These are all things that are readily apparent and distinguishable to people who watch soccer regularly.

So the flipside of that, not caring enough about winning to do it, is more desirable? The crowd praises that sort of thing for a reason.

It's actually nothing like that, but you're right in that it's hard to define. But other players know it when they see it, which was also part of Wynalda's point, that players will hold each other more accountable when their own point bonuses are on the line, both in games and in practices. This isn't just about the perceptions of fans.

Well then, it's a good thing that "playing harder" doesn't mean just that, isn't it?

For the most part, you've been misinformed, then.

I did that already.

Not in MLS, they're not. That's part of the point.

That's certainly true. It also is certainly not a good reason to abandon the idea that substantial point bonuses would be a mostly positive thing. We could sit here and come up with all sorts of scenarios for which good ideas are not suited, and ways to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

There is also the bigger picture, which I think Wynalda was talking about (but again, I could be wrong), the effect that making every point valuable and worth working hard for would have on the overall culture of professional soccer. This is, as I'm sure you will say, even more elusive to define and identify and quantify than the effect on each individual game, but that doesn't mean that it can't or won't exist. I think that this would be a very likely result, and a positive one for the sport as a whole. I can't prove it, but I can't rule it out, either. And neither can you.

 

But has there been a time when people aren't talking about the MLS calendar, player development and the pay of players in MLS?

Eric's talking about things that people have been constantly talking about for years. He's just making it about him and calling people assholes in a public forum. He's settling scores using old material that he's trying to repackage to make himself look forward-thinking. Just because the decisions don't mirror his vision does not mean these things have not been discussed to death.

In fact, his douchiness is masking the discussion. I think all these things merit a continuous look, but when he's lying and tossing around spurious accusations, it's kind of hard to focus on the content (for me at least).

 

is you question limited to the scope of the "BS-type universe" or could it be expanded to perhaps a broader audience?

and actually, there was a time when not many were talking about those 3 things in particular -- back in MLS 1.0 when the league was truly really just getting started and these "newer" 3 issues (within your post) were certainly not a top priority/interest for the league or anyone just starting to follow it.

but with a 19-20 team league and the infrastructure in place, and SUM apparently humming along nicely, these questions may have a more key relevancy (and possibility to be addressed/tested with answers) as MLS does move on to version 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever and does start to "put gas in the engine" of the car they've built.

absolutely.

and for you (and many here) these topics have been discussed to death.

but a voice/name like Wynalda (as a Fox host/commentator now, and an MLS original/first-goal-scorer and USMNT/3-time-WC veteran) could be a "new" voice that draws in new listeners (and participants) to the discussion.

if he's backtracking and now saying that his opinions and comments aren't necessarily shared by David Hill or Fox Sports, then that's of interest too. (just that it is interesting that he's willing to finally admit to being corrected on misstated tv ratings information.)

if Wynalda's rant at the NSCAA causes a few more people to "tune in to" and get interested in the conversation, that's good for the conversation -- even if many here may realize that the conversation has already been going on for a good long while (and a lot of these "new" points and comments in the discussion are perhaps inaccurate and/or not all that well thought out).

if this rant at the NSCAA actually leads to Wynalda (or some other perhaps more sober voice) getting a public "debate" session with Rodriquez or Garber, then that very well could be some very useful insight and information on some of these topics that concern the league.

 

Oh, come on -- you know that if the British American Football League did things the way they're done in the USA, it would have the same crowds and ratings of the NFL's games in Wembley. It's all about business practices. Nothing to do with talent, history, tradition, etc.