Note the qualifiers in my question. It's a pretty important distinction that IS THE WHOLE POINT of this silly argument that we end up having on a biweekly-ish basis. This distinction does little or nothing to diminish the very salient point the Soccernomics guys make.
These days, for a club that's just been promoted, finishing mid-table is an achievement. For any club capable of getting 30,000 a week or more, they'd be looking to push on for Europa League qualification. Challenging for the title is sadly a very different proposition though these days. As an example of how things used to be, Nottingham Forest came up from a spell in the old 2nd division and won the title in their first season back up in 1977, and promptly won the european cup two years running in the two years after that. They weren't a big club, nor were they bankrolled by a rich owner. Ok, that wasn't the norm, but promoted clubs weren't expected to struggle as they are now. Fulham aren't a big club by any means. There are probably another 20-30 clubs capable of getting 25,000 a game. They do have a rich owner though.
Well, I donot think that. But it isnot so that the fan has influence and can keep a club alive when it is in dire streets. Then the owner decides what happens. If it doesnot make money or has no future making money after a try it is unplugged.
does the quote below rather contradict this? It is a different culture. It may be rare for there to be multiple sport options in many cities here, but there are still many where there are two. There isn't much crossover between support though. Fans tend to support football OR rugby, and would not switch to watching the other if one club slipped out of the top division. Part of that is because the minor leagues are far more minor in comparison to dropping down a division in football.
Here it is (professional sports only) actually 2-4 for most bigger cities (100.000+ pop.). And professional handball/hockey/basketball teams are pretty much on the same level (financially and attendance wise) as 3rd division soccer clubs (or some small 2nd division clubs actually). Sure, the top soccer clubs are far, far ahead - but among the top 100 German sports club by attendance (www.stadionwelt.de releases a ranking of those every month) there are about 54 soccer clubs, 18 hockey clubs, 16 basketball clubs and 12 handball clubs (there are also some volleyball and (American) football clubs who sometimes crack the top-100).
He said business he got the idea but it's the wrong word. It's a monopolistic business. You buy a sports franchise in the states you have a monopoly on sports in your area. The toronto maple leafs brought in about 6times the money of the average team. And in a time before salary caps rarely maid the play offs, the owners had no interest in their team winning, the leafs were a brand name first team second. If the leafs could face competition from a minor team they would of had to try to stay competitive. The mls needs to be franchised, but only because North America lacks the proper stadiums, if this wasn't an issue pro reg could work. I'm real sick of hating on pro rel it makes sense, and I would love to see it in hockey(atleast in canada) It might never work in soccer, but I can assure you it makes sense in hockey.
*sigh* What does this have to do with the price of okra in Nebraska? What the ********? I don't even know where to begin to make sense of this. What is "the proper stadium" and how in the everliving hell does a stadium have anything to do with a league-wide policy of membership? Perhaps when you learn the English language, you can detail how it "makes sense" in the American sports context.
I'm sure all soccer clubs worldwide are run as businesses, if for no other reason than to limit the owner's losses Seems to me the major difference is a franchise basically protects the owner from losing too much since there's no competition in his market and he only fails dramatically if the whole league fails whereas that protection isn't in place where pro/rel exists. It's another one of those ironic areas in sports where the U.S. has far less of a free market model than most of the rest of the world.
Yeah, I think that's the disconnect between a lot of European and American fans. All my friends who are soccer fans are also fans of other sports. That's pretty common with American sports fans. Recently, MLS has done a good job of picking expansion team markets where there isn't as much competition from existing professional sports teams. None of the three Pacific Northwest teams compete with more than 2 other professional sports teams in their markets, for example. And Americans are more likely to change what teams they are fans of, IMO. Part of that has to do with the size of the country- if you move fron Baltmore to San Diego, for example, it's going to be tough to keep following Baltimore teams. College sports are the exception, though. That's a lifelong commitment.
The fact that MLS is a relatively new league plays a role as well. Can you imagine a scenario where the Vancounver Whitecaps, after their first season in a renovated stadium, was dropped back to the NASL? The new fans would lose interest, and the target market would hardly know they exist. In case you haven't noticed soccer isn't all that big in the US and Canada.
Probably also I would think that it was significant that most clubs around the world (I would guess) emerged as grassroots organizations. MLS is really an imposition of professional soccer from the top down.
I'm not disagreeing. Just pointing out that it's rather uneasy to state that US sports fans are emotionally invested in their sports teams if they'd give them up at a drop of a hat if situations change. Pretty much anywhere, if a club goes down you'd expect a drop in crowd numbers (although that's not always the case), but those fans that stop going don't just switch off their interest and find another team to care about instead.
It's not so much finding another team to care about. Rather, most sports fans in the US naturally develop an allegiance to a number of teams in different sports. In cases where one team is going through a bad stretch, you're more likely to focus your attention on other teams that you are a fan of. In the case of MLS, fan allegiances are still pretty new. As just one example, Toronto FC was founded on 2006, while the Maple Leafs can trace their roots back to 1908.
I'm sure that's true. It just doesn't hint at a particularly strong emotional involvement if you lose interest if a team stops doing well.
The Cleveland Browns have passionate loyalty from their fans and sell out their 70,000 seat stadium all the time despite the fact they're always lousy. Of course, they're still in the NFL every year. Who knows what would happen if they were dropped down to a lower league and instead of playing Pittsburgh and Cincinnati had to play Fon du Lac and Havre de Grace.
For most Americans, the difference between minor league and major league teams is pretty significant. Minor league teams are, typically, only popular in places where there aren't any major league options.
These 2 statements aren't really contradictory. It all comes down to the matter of how strong the emotional attachments to teams are. Among the largest number of US sports fans they have allegiances to teams in multiple sports at pro and college level. As for strong emotional attachments most of these have that for one or at the most 2 teams. You watch games & keep track of the others but you don't live or die by them.
Well, to get back on topic and address the OP, I don't think there's much the everyday citizen can do but support domestic football and press the powers that be for reforms. I'm of the opinion that the only way we'll ever see true growth is if the media conglomerates see football as a profitable. When ESPN care about something they do a better job of selling that product to the public than any other entity. With increased exposure comes more money from sponsorships and advertising, more money would raise the cap and give the MLS the ability to attract players comparable to European leagues. To that end, I've always thought for the true development of US football and North American football for that matter the two governing bodies Concacaf and Conmebol should merge. I know this is a debate that's probably been had numerous times in the past. I think World Cup qualifying would be the most difficult thing to figure out but if it can than I'm all for it. What interest me is the unified international club competition and the potential revenue that would bring. I can see domestic sponsors and the networks becoming interested in such a competition. It's much easier to sell the public Corinthians v Galaxy, then matches in the CCL. If we can get ESPN to do their part then I think we'll really see growth, both in quality of our domestic league and exposure/viewership nationally. I don't think relegation/promotion is feasible and I think other things would have more an effect.
But by your own admission, the situation isn't comparable because there's likely precious few people who follow both Newcastle United and the Newcastle Falcons and Northumberland County Cricket. The culture here is inherently different.
One thing the Americans could do to help grow soccer in America is seeing the end of the MLS whether or not his team, has been shown that increasing the average attendance has brought news both at home and in the rest the world if they manage to rise too slowly to get the audience even more football talk, which in turn will bring new investors and will have more media attention. Pd: I know most would see the end before I suggested it, but for example could do for instance by promoting it on their facebook walls of the event with your schedule and TV stations that broadcast and share for their contacts are aware. It is a suggestion but have 13 days to help in what they can to raise ratingns TV as they can
I don't think Americans want to see soccer grow in America. Since OUR Football is played with 1600 lbs (725 kg) of tackling force. Not the slide tackle you guys know over in the Espana. It's the quintessential American sport. FOOTBALL next to Baseball. Soccer will always, and should always be a niche sport.
Soccer should thank its lucky stars that the NFL started out and remained a socialist league with franchises. If Am football had divisions to the point where most serious markets had a team, soccer would stand no chance. It's also limited by its short season. I find it crazy that a city like Portland had one professional sports team before the Timbers came in. They're basically ceding territory. And that applies to most US sports. Baseball in particular. Baseball could be more popular than Am football if they only had divisions; and baseball is ideal for divisions. They could easily have a pyramid where just about every market in the US with a pop of over 500,000 would have potential for playing in the top division. What an advantage that would be over the other sports. It would be like the English soccer system on steroids with a market almost 6 times bigger. But its too late now for those sports, their structure is set in stone - to their detriment imo.
Henry, Avram, Mourinho, Wenger, Alan Hansen, Villas-Boas, Adebayor Impressions: http://youtu.be/Udr4wH82Muw