*ding* Once again, Superliga is a great competition, and watching Houston vs. Pachuca is fun... but when it comes down to it, Mexican fans would rather watch Cruz Azul vs. Necaxa, not Columbus, and personlly I would rather watch New England/Kansas City than New England vs. Monarcas.... and I don't think the fans in either country want to create a league that breaks up the true national championships that exist in each nation. I want a top flight AMERICAN league, and I want all of the top teams in this country to compete for THIS nations championship... its nice to dream... but no, the main objective is to make money, to make money for those who buy into the league... developing and growing american soccer is obviously important to many of the fans, which is why we buy into the league... ...of making money by condemning most of the franchises in the league to a lower level of soccer... something the owners would go nuts over. as for the secondary goal of MLS: it would be interesting to see what a combined league would do to residency requirements in MLS... it would probably result in a reduction of American nationals at the top flight of american soccer, which ain't good. eh, i wouldn't go that far... but i think they would realize that the people who would be attracted to mexican clubs in this nation aren't going to games as it is (and there isn't a huge draw for most mexican clubs outside of Club America and Chivas), and those who are going to games are starting to buy into the rivalries in MLS. To blow that up, frankly is (instead of the word I'm thinking I'm just gonna say "mentally challenged") ------------ If we wanted to go overboard with Superliga... take the top teams from MLS each year and the top from the FMF, and put them into a 10-16 team league that plays over 10-15 weekends in the spring (1 game against each opponent) for a trophy... don't completely ruin the domestic competition in each nation.
Don´t hold your breath... This proposal is for very, very minor leagues...Forget Austria, Switzerland or Belgium. Think Lichtenstein, Moldavia, Luxemburg....
Just because the current corporate entity of MLS merges with another league, that doesn't mean the ownership/management/investment ceases to exist. That pool of money, knowledge, experience, and people may very well continue. You're describing a non-profit or charitable organization. MLS is a for-profit entity. That means MLS is primarily out to make money. Developing soccer in this country may be a "softer mission" of the company, but money is the bottom line. If they could quadruple their long-term revenue and not suffer any major adverse effects simply by having naked girls dance during every halftime, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could change the round ball into a pointy ball and not suffer any major adverse effects from it, while quintupling their money from it, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Urban verus rural has some accuracy to it, but it's not complete. There are pockets of resistance in large and small cities in every geographic region of the US. I picked "middle America" (a vague term, not necessarily with any geographic boundaries) because I've recently looked at (and posted on BigSoccer) a map of the US showing concentration of Hispanics. And wherever there aren't Hispanics, there's going to naturally be less familiarity. Chicago has like 2 million Hispanics now. So if MLS asked the Chicago fans whether they wanted their team to merge with the Mexican league, the Chicago fans would probably be naturally much more receptive to the idea than fans of, say, Kansas City...where the Hispanic population is so much lower.
Perhaps, but even the article quotes those leading the forum on the merits of consolidation in Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe.
Because Yugoslavia and Soviet have split and now contains around 20 countries and as many leagues perhaps?... It´s a rather farfetched idea, Croatian teams playing Serbian..Or even Armenian clubs playing Azerian despite both countries are practically in war with each other.
That's an awesome system! No surprise that Germany's huge enough for its own branch This would be exciting to see in Europe; I wonder how it would work in the US since our big cities aren't evenly scattered about the country
I agree that it's far-fetched. And that's the reason why I think that the first European leagues to merge will be the second-tier leagues of neighboring countries in Europe, like the Netherlands/Belgium or Switzerland/Austria, and only if the new regional leagues keep the door open to all clubs in the participating countries through promotion and relegation. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
The point remains that the discussion wasn't limited to the most minor of leagues -- the Lichtenstein's, Moldavia's, and Luxemburg's you continue to cite.
True, but I have a feeling that the resurrection of the Warsaw-pact as a soccer region instead of a political unit is a rather farfetched idea as the motivation is just that Eastern Europe is falling way behind the rest of the Uefa-countries soccer-wise. But let us wait until say Hungary or Bulgaria realises that they will get no Champions league spots and some neighbouring country benefits instead...That would be a true test of the idea.
Aren't Champions' League/UEFA Cup spots guaranteed to all member countries? The number of slots may vary (from 1 to 4), but all member countries that have a domestic league should get at least one entry slot to those two tournaments, no? EDIT: Erm, nevermind... having my first coffee and I misread. I think I see what you are saying... if they rolled into larger conglomerates, then it is possible for some countries that have guaranteed spots to miss out, right? Cheers!
Agreed, that will be the crucible. More competitive leagues require teams that dominate the current weaker circuits (with an easy path to the Champions League) to take a real risks in order to play better competition. It will be interesting to see if they really wish to do that.
Well, it's not like countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia etc ... are doing anything positive with their CL spots. What do they have to lose by merging? Each of these countries may have a handful of clubs that have potential, but they are limited by the league they're in. It's hard to retain quality players and attract new signings when 80% of your games are against tiny provincial clubs. You also bring up tensions between some countries as a negative thing. I look at it differently. I think league matches between top Serbian and Croatian sides would be great for the region, and aren't likely to start any serious violence. Of course there is major hooliganism problem in the Balkans, but more money means a more professional league, and a more professional league can take stronger action against hooligans. And in fact those clubs won't have to rely on hooligans anymore to fill stadiums. A joint league would mean a spike in attendance at these clubs anyways. I think there should be a stipulation in this initiative that would limit this only to countries with a population under 15 million or so. That means that every nation under 15 mill can latch on to another country or group of countries nearby. In Europe this would mean about 12 - 14 regional leagues instead of 50 leagues out of which only around 20 are big enough to be relevant internationally. I also see this as a perfect solution for Central America and the Caribbean. But under no circumstance should this apply to Mexico, USA and Canada. That is a population base of 500 million. That would mean that 400 million people without a first division club. Here in the states we're already facing the prospects of shutting out medium sized markets like Portland and Rochester because there's too many cities trying to get involved. We should be focusing more on a split with Canada in the next 10-20 years instead of a merger with Mexico. If North America is merged, that sets a precedent for a European superleague. I think this initiative was thought up specifically to avoid a European superleague. I think the general consensus in most governing bodies is that superleagues are a bad idea. It would mean a deathblow to dozens of mid size clubs around Europe especially, which would damage football at a grassroots level.
One of the problems facing the 2nd and 3rd tier leagues is they get killed on TV money. The TV contract for the Hungarian league ain't much, because it's only watched in Hungary. But a Hungary-Austria-Swiss league would be watched in all 3 countries, with the concomitant increase in TV revenue for the teams that manage to be in it. Further, CL TV money is based on a team's home market. ManU makes more money for being in the group stage, by aLOT, than a Hungarian team that manages to sneak in receives. I don't know how consolidation would affect this. I doubt there'd be a significant increase in the interest in Switzerland and Austria to watch the Hungarian team in the CL.
I actually like where this could go. I think Costa Rica could stand on its own. If not a central american league might work. As the the Caribbean, I think a combined league might be the best way. But i'm speaking without in depth knowlege of the Caribbean leagues. Carribbean also has political issues. Cuba and Hati, how will those two work out in combined league? Would be interesting to see. The Dominican Republic? Those guys are more into baseball than anything. Would like to hear from people that actually pay attention to Carribbean soccer and see what they have to say about a combined league. I think the major players in the Carribean are T&T and Jamaica.
Wishfull thinking that Canada could one day support a big league. Perhaps Toronto, Vancouver and another big team and Montreal could lead the way.
The idea might work in Europe but the Americas are too large. The travel and expense of it would really drain and drag out a season. Furthermore we have the Champions League and Cup in Europe and Americans respectfully. The best of the best end up playing regardless. Who's interested in watching Sunderland and Tus Koblenz, or Real Salt Lake and Monterrey?
It's not a matter of ability, it's a matter of will. For example Holland is less than half the population of Canada, yet it has a fully competent and exciting league where 14 or so teams average over 10,000. Sweden is like 1/4 of Canada yet they have about 8 clubs averaging over 10K. So it can be done ... maybe not overnight, but someday. The question is, will there be any incentive. Probably not in a business sense, but there may be an incentive as far as growing Canadian soccer in general. MLS would likely never admit more than 3 Canadian cities, if that (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver). What if soccer becomes so popular in Canada that other owners will start pressing? Another Toronto team maybe? Ottawa, Edmondton, Calgary? It would be great for the Canadian National Team.
No they can't. Saprissa and La Liga are the only teams that can hold their ground in international play. Sure, every once in a while you get the dark horse team that surprise everyone like Puntarenas, Herediano or Cartagines but 75% of the time those teams don't even challenge for the championship. The other 7 teams are just fillers. It's just like that in every CA league.
Costa Rica is only 4 mill people. There's only so many sizable clubs that can exist in a country that small.
To put the numbers in context, Harris County, where the major city is Houston, Texas, has a population size of almost 3,870,000. Now, if you were to combine all the pop. #'s for Central America Honduras 7,483,763 Nicaragua 5,675,356 Guatemala 12,728,111 El Salvador 6,948,073 Costa Rica 4,133,884 Panama 3,242,173 Belize 294,385 Total: 40,505,745 Then you have a population size bigger than California [36,457,549].