They used to do that. It didn't succeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Pacific_Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands_Invitational
One of the tresholds that define hard ceilings is the number of world class and star players. Unless one is truly delusional the top two international cup competitions are the UCL and the UEL. These facilitate the paying for the best players in the world. For instance sponsor contracts ManUnited has, demands playing in the CL without an absence allowed of more than 2 years at the cost of 100 million less payed out. So the leagues in UEFA simply have a very large headstart towards mls. Given that number of world class and star players is limited, the best simply play in the top 5 UEFA leagues and in the top clubs in the next 5 ranking UEFA leagues. True stars simply don't go playing in the mls, unless they have made their marks in winning UEFA silverware. What's left are players to be considered good. So when one takes the money spent on contracts of players it might well be that mls beats several 10 to 6 ranking UEFA leagues. This comes down, if I understand the way mls operates well, to the fact that mls strives for a level playing field which will reflect in the average quality of the players. So while the paycheck of most individual mls players will be higher than most of those of the Eredivisieplayers even on the books of clubs like AZ Alkmaar, the quality of the league itself is defined by the quality of the players present in the clubs, reflected in the number of for instance national team players of countries with a reasonable ranking.
Things are different, MLS is bigger with higher profile players, the other leagues are more established and the format doesn't have to be the same. Plus it was in Hawaii. Why not Manila or Kuala Lumpur?
A-League would be in midseason in February though. They just had their Grand Final the other weekend.
So wjat you tryi g to.say every league has fall spri g sxhedule just mls want to be special and go against the grsin
This is where it would be helpful to pay attention. Of the four leagues that were involved in the Pan-Pacific Championship, all except the A-League play calendar year seasons. Australia is the only country in the eastern half of AFC that doesn't play a calendar year season. MLS is with the vast majority of the relevant leagues for a Pacific Rim competition.
"Beginning in 2026/27, the J.League will use a fall–spring format. The regular season will begin in August and pause for a winter break between December and February, with the final matches played in May." - Wikipedia
Nope, this thread however is a good example of the differences between sports either side of the pond. The attitude to money is one of those differences, again as shown earlier in this thread. The Premier League isn't popular because of the money, if it was all about money then the Saudi League would be the world's 'top' league. The "hard ceiling" of the MLS won't depend on how much money the clubs make, that's my point.
The Premier League is popular outside the UK because it has the best players. It has the best players because it has the most money. Before the TV and government lottery money dilapidated stadiums were half full and the best English players went off to play in Spain, Italy or Germany. If you don't see the correlation between the global success of the Premier League and money there's really nothing that can help you.
Arguably Spain has the 'best players'. Apart from the 1980's the English football league has always been the most popular football league, historically (apart from the 1980's) it has always been the best attended league, it has got nothing to do with the money and everything to do with the competition itself. Unlike the rest of Europe English football clubs were playing in front of 30'000+ crowds a hundred years ago! The popularity of the English game has everything to do with history and tradition and very little to do with money. For example in the 1950's the German and French top flights averaged around 8'500 spectators - about the same as the English clubs were attracting in 1899!
When Feyenoord needed a big stadium (63,000) in 1937, they were still amateurs. So no money involved.
In 1953/54 (the earliest Dutch I've got) Feyenoord averaged 12,362 they were the best supported Dutch side that season, the 'average' attendance in Dutch football that year was 5,632 (though thats across all 56 clubs) - the same season in England Arsenal averaged 50,278 & the 'average' attendance in the 22 team top tier was 34,888, Everton averaged 45,992 in the second tier (22 teams) where the 'average' attendance was 20,602. English football had crowds like today long before the rest of Europe did and it was this head start that gave English football its early popularity and an advantage it still has today. MLS attendances are a much bigger indication of the leagues popularity than the money.
Yeah, but that was just after the war, in which Rotterdam was destroyed. You're not building a 63,000 stadium as an amateur side for an average attendance of around 12,000. The older club across the river, Sparta Rotterdam iirc from1898, was the club with the upper class/rich supporters. Edit: but the point was that popularity of Feyenoord wasnot dependent on spending money.
I know Feyenoord are very popular in the Netherlands now but the point I'm making is that English football had a 'head start' which has a lot to do with its popularity historically, English clubs were attracting crowds like today long before anywhere else in Europe and that has more to do with its popularity today and historically than the money.
Why are you going back 80 years and comparing the popularity of English football in England to the popularity of domestic football in post-war Germany, which didn't have a national, professional league, or France, where it was barely a blip on the radar outside of Marseille and a couple of northern industrial cities? Football in England has a post-war boom when it was the only thing in town other than cinema. Wages were capped at less than £20, admission prices were 1/6 (£3 in today's money) and matches kicked off at 3 pm so people could get home from work, get changed and have lunch before heading to the ground. Money wasn't a factor. And it was 80 years ago! 80 years before that it was unbecoming to get paid for participating in sport at all. 80 years before that there were barely any team sports. The success of Premier League is based on money. That enables it to attract the best players. That doesn't mean English people wouldn't watch English football if the money wasn't there but it probably wouldn't have had the global success.
You know what else was popular in England in the 1950s? The seaside. The trains would start rolling into my home town early on Saturday and Sunday mornings and the last people would head for home after dark. This would happen throughout July and August. The beaches were packed. Our town had the biggest outdoor pool in the UK. Other than that there was nothing. The nearest shops and cafes were a half mile walk away and there was no funfair or amusement arcade. The average high in those months was probably 68 Fahrenheit but still the beaches were packed. This is Hoylake beach today. Times change.
Perhaps you should re-read my last post?Apart from the 1980's English football has always been the most popular, its about the fact that English football was attracting 2020 sized crowds in 1920 before the rest of Europe - its because as the home of football the English league got a headstart, THAT is why it was and is so popular - if it was about money then the Saudi League would be the world's most popular! The seaside (which incidentally is booming in the UK right now) hasn't got anything to do with football!!
EVERY nations domestic league is, was and always will be the most popular in its own country however I remember how the world used to watch the English Cup final, I know (I have family) and can remember how popular English football was in the far East in the 1970's, English football is more popular now than its ever been but it was always the most popular (foreign) league apart from the dark days of the 1980's when hooliganism caused HUGE damage to the game here and the Italian league became the most popular. The Italian league was the best attended in the 1980's but hooliganism ultimately damaged the Italian league in the 1980's the way it did in England a decade earlier.
It was popular in the Empire for historical reasons and because the FA Cup Final was the only live club game available in many of those countries. That has zero to do with today's environment.
I'm not suggesting anything else, it was popular for many aligning factors that ultimately means it was by chance, the fact that its the home of football is (for one example) a much bigger reason for its popularity than the money thing (which is a result of and not the cause of English footballs popularity), its the same reason why America will always be the place of the worlds most popular American Football League - it's the 'home' of American Football and has been popular there long before anywhere else, its resulted in a headstart and a tradition that predates 'other' American Football clubs in the world.
The problem I have with this whole conversation is that it assumes right from the start that the CEILING is the most important part of a league. What happens at the absolute top. Well, if you want to be a front-runner, I guess that's fine. But there's a lot more that goes into a sports league than just who takes the crown. There's also a matter of whether or not other clubs can compete, and therefore stay relevant. La Liga? I wouldn't watch a La Liga match if you paid me. Three clubs have won the last 20 titles, and Barcelona and Real Madrid have 18 of them. Why the hell would anyone who's a fan of any other club even care? The Bundesliga had a team literally go undefeated in league play this year. Great accomplishment for them, but if the rest of the league has no chance of competing for the title, that's a lot of meaningless games. The debate is always about whether or not the top teams from this league can handle the top teams from that league, and the best players from here vs the best from there, but leagues aren't only run for the benefit of the best. Great leagues need to have some kind of reliance on its member clubs to have a modicum of success to keep it from becoming a mockery. I'd much rather watch Miami play against New England than watch Real Madrid play Granada. Yeah, Real Madrid has better players, but who cares?
Doesn't the long-term ceiling come down to payrolls. Which group do you want to be in and how do you get there without ruining the integrity of the league and pricing out fans? Here are the payrolls from the top 5 leagues. 4th Level. MLS is sort of there. 3rd Level Second level Elite