Its official MLS and Chivas reach a agreement

That part about "Reflect inclusiveness and diversity" will sound like a huge joke if Chivas will in fact automatically not consider certain american players because of how they look or what language they speak at home.

Some of us do care about "our own identity", otherwise may as well create a new NASL because that also was hugely popular for a while.

 

Wouldn't happen. The Galaxy has a pretty faithful core following. And just as it would galvanize the LA fans of Chivas USA, so would it galvanize the Central Americans, who have been very faithful to the team.

The G's could count on 17,000 supporters. That leaves 10,000 seats available. Advantage: Galaxy.

(Or better stated: MLS wins.)

 

NEWSFLASH:

WUSA folded. Never came close to capturing the Latino market. The concept is on the back burner until another plan can be worked out.

Dallas has the league's worst attendance primarily b/c they lost their Latino audience. You throw in the Latinos into Dallas' attendance, and you get a # that tops SJ. Mind you, this is still w/ a bad team. There were several articles last week about this.

I wouldn't say Dallas is a "model" for anything. But what it has shown is that MLS is perilously close to WUSA w/o the Latino market.

So keep away from the ritelin (?) when CHivas comes to town, watch a game, get all lunatic w/ your "patriotic" rhetoric, but be a consumer of soccer. In other words, take a lesson from the brown brother: get passionate about soccer and consume. Now THAT's a model that MLS would like to emulate.

 

Re: 2 things I don't likie:

IOW, yes somebody already thought about it, a few posts above yours.

But I'm looking at this figure of 15 million dollars and remembering how a cheapskate in Miami gave MLS a serious black eye. We may not have to wait 20 years to see Chivas San Diego go away.

And do we really know Vergara is eager to build a soccer specific stadium? I hope he breaks ground before his team starts injuring Mexican pride, piling up losses in an empty Qualcomm. Then, Jefe, Chivas fans will consider it a gimmick.

 

What? Pointing out the nefarious history of Texas' "finest"?

Or attempting to draw a connection to the rhetoric spewed out on the board and that which get misdirected to innocent ppl through violent manifestations?

Granted, this is BS, so I guess I can't expect too much from ppl.

(Question: how can BS have so many intelligent, articulate contributors and at the same time draw ... morons?)

 

Re: Re: "Vergara said he is willing to invest $12 to $15 million to get a Chivas USA

$12 million is bugger all in the world of sport. Certainly not the amount you'd have to lose when you consider that MLS is rumoured to have lost $300 million in its history. The Tampa Bay Mutiny investors put $20 million at the start and were thought to have lost that and another $40 million. So, 12 million isn't a lot of money.

 

Some would say "reflect inclusiveness and diversity" sounds like a huge joke with Mexican-Americans already...

Please explain to me how Chivas will reduce the diversity of the league?

Ok vic, but that's got nothing to do with Chivas. In what way are the defects of NASL and the "threat" to MLS's identity posed by Chivas equivalent?

NASL failed because it overspent on foreigners and had no credible franchise policy. Chivas USA represents neither of those threats. It will ultimately be just another MLS franchise.

 

Yes that attempt I find despicable. Stay on topic, please.

 

Re: Re: 2 things I don't likie:

Can I just say that it is a point that needs dwelling upon. The Fusion seemed to be turning it around; increased crowds, the right stadium and a positive buzz about the franchise and then the plug is unfairly pulled.

 

Re: Re: Its official MLS and Chivas reach a agreement

That's because I hadn't posted yet...

Noted Americanista rdl666 (or whatever his handle is) has stated that if Televisa (owners/pimps of Club America) were to buy the Quacks, he wouldn't care about San Jose. I think this will be the attitude of most Chivas fans, especially those not in the SD area.

Not to mention that they'll (the SD Goats) probably suck ass if they ignore non-hispanic Americans or Mexican-Americans who dare to speak Spanish with a middle-class accent, thus bringing shame to the Chivas name.

 

Why would a middle class accent bring shame to anybody?

I figure that this latter comment was geared towards me.
Let the record show that at one point in a Chivas thread, I stated that most of the Latinos on USMNT are middle-class. In no way is that an indictment, just an observation made to show that truly US Soccer needs to expand beyond the suburban soccer leagues. It's gotten us quite far, and the guys have shown on an international stage that they belong there. I just think that in order to take it to the next level, we cannot rely exclusively on the system we have. We have to expand into the inner-city. (I know that it has been tried, and am aware of the difficulties inherent. The hope is that Chivas will bring the name that Latinos at least trust and respect. Maybe that will help. Who knows.)

Hey EricB, remember, I voted for you for president, so you owe me...

 

Yeah, that was a poorly constructed sentence on my part. I meant that SD Goats sucking ass will bring shame to the Chivas name. Of course, Vergara's management of the original team in Jalisco is doing a pretty good job of that, as well.

 

Kinda hard to do when ppl make borderline fascist statements.

 

I'm kind of alarmed with all the talk of Chivas ruining "our" MLS. What are Mexican-Americans going to do that will ruin "our" tradition of play? Nothing. This all sounds like a lot of fear for some reason from a certain segment of the MLS fan base. If Chivas chooses to predominatly play Mexican-American players, so what, they are Americans, and part of the tradition.

I don't think you mean it this way, but the "our traditions for MLS" speak sounds a lot like only certain segments of the population can fit the "proper" tradition. That's just crazy.

 

I think some people are concerned that Mexicans might take over MLS. In my opinion, there's little chance of that. By 2005, when Chivas starts, the league will be a lot stronger. There will probably be additional expansion slots awarded with a number of stadiums under construction. In the long run, MLS probably presents a bigger danger to the MFL than the reverse. Sports stars go where the money is and there's a whole lot more of it North of the border. Look what happened to the NHL. The Canadians have pretty much been priced out of their own league.

 

I think there are a few things going on here:

1. There are fans who obviously aren't keen on the inevitable demographic changes Garber is selling as the "next America." The country is getting browner, less Anglo more Spanish, less Euro, more Latin, yaddah yaddah. And maybe there isn't the compulsion to "assimilate or die" for US immigrants in the new millenium. It's a little xenophobic, it smells a little racist, but people are commonly afraid of change.

2. I think a more common sentiment for people on these boards is we simply don't want to see MLS become a minor league for the big clubs of the world.

With Chivas USA coming in, Club America and Real Madrid talking about MLS teams, Ajax setting up another foreign shop in Orlando, Man United greedlily eyeing the American market, Champions World crow-barring the gates, and MLS' apparent willingness to transmogrify to please new investors, people with this fear have a point.

Personally, I think foreign investment from proven soccer business people is god-sent! Club America operating an MLS team? Great! A Chivas USA team? Okay... An MLS that's 60% farm teams for world superclubs? No way.

MLS has found a successful, sloW-growth business model that depends on long-term thinking investors, soccer specific venues, improving american players and winning committed fans a handful at a time. That's what I want to see them stick with - so I can see San Jose some day become a massive club like Chivas, Newcastle or the Columbus Crew.

 

3. I also would not be surprised if single entity emerges as the eminent format for a professional sports league.

 

Nonetheless it was a stated mission/goal of the league... and allowing a team to turn away american players because of looks or last names in no way fullfills this intent. How does a league "reflect inclusiveness and diversity" and embrace an official stance for a team to exclude certain americans? MLS imcompetance in fully exploring and making the best use of all us talent is bad, but for me it doesn't justify simply allowing exclusion of certain players on a new team.

Of course Chivas will not "reduce" diversity.. you could add more and more teams with similar exclusionary stances in player selection and not "reduce" diversity in the league but that doesn't make it ok either. The point of expansion was to create more opportunities for all american players, not for only a certain type. I don't agree with that spirit.

I didn't say it had anything to do with Chivas per se... You talked about not caring anything about establishing new traditions or some such things..only a profitable league and entertainment and nothing else. Those were the old NASL values... american player development was a distant dead end last priority. I would hope MLS would not put huge crowds and money first above all else the way NASL did.

 

Here's I guess where we have to agree to disagree. I actually think Chivas USA helps MLS reflect inclusiveness and diversity. You think exactly the opposite.

Are Mexican-Americans are well-represented in MLS?
-- I can't count more than 17 who might be Mexican or Mexican-American-- about 7% of the players.

--That's not too far off of the the approximately 9% of the total US population made up by Mexicans, but wouldn't you expect Mexican-Americans to be at least slightly over-represented given that soccer is more likely to be the favorite sport?

--So if you figure that Mexican-Americans then should be slightly overrepresented, say, 11% of MLS, then there would be a total of 29 Mexican/Mexican-American players. In other words, Chivas could field an entire Mexican-American starting 11 (and .89 of one reserve...)

--What's the result? MLS is more inclusive, no?

No-- the NASL didn't put money first. Remember, it ran out of money. Profitability is much more a value of MLS.

And there's no reason to think that Chivas is inconsisntent with developing players and tradition. After all, they've announced a nationwide scouting program, so hopefully that should put that concern to rest.

 

I agree we will have to disagree on this because when a team makes the player policy "mostly mexican" or "mostly hispanic" that does sound good on the surface because people conjure up images of possible superstar players overlooked by the system in certain areas of the country. So there is nothing wrong with that part, but the flipside of "mostly mexican" is "if you are an american player but aren't this particular shade of skin tone or your last name isn't like this, then don't even bother coming this way, keep out, this team does not want you"... Unfortunately, one implies the other and I can't say that is in any way being inclusive or diverse.

What I meant by putting money first is going after the short-term high attendance propelled by big foreign names while laying no groundwork for future american professional soccer beyond the big foreign names and soccer fans (I mean not making any leeway in winning over the sports paying public in general, which is somewhat important for long-term success). They could have instead chosen to settle for low attendance and low profit expectations with mostly all american players but couldn't resist spending and spending once they saw the fascination the public had with big foreign stars... and assuming this fascination would last forever. And I dont neccessarily associate player deveopment with pro soccer tradition in this country.

 

I think the real heart of our disagreement is that you believe in "colorblindness" as a guiding principle, whereas I think "colorblindness" is really just one strategy in the pursuit of our real guiding principle: equality.

The thing is, while colorblindness was very nobly used to fight discrimination of a different era, I don't know how useful a concept it is today. I don't think there's much open racism anymore, but there's still a ton of inequality.

I don't think MLS is racist, but I do think it's unequal as it stands now. As a result, I would rather have a partially race-consious approach (Chivas) that, taken with the rest of the league as a whole, makes the league more equal rather than a purely colorblind approach that leaves things relatively less equal.

 

Not that I disagree with you, but isn't this how it is for most of the world's leagues that aren't Italy, Spain, Germany and England? I don't want to see European teams setting up minor league operations in MLS, but that's more of a concern about the absentee management problems and the fact that, like NFL Europe, it wouldn't really be about the local fans. The bottem line is that unless you have the bucks to play with the big boys, you become their supermarket.

 

A quick question.

Has Chivas de Saprissa implemented a Mexican player only policy? Has Viagra or his minions announced that if the deal for Chivas de Madrid goes through, they will follow a Mexican player only policy?

If yes then Viagra is sticking to his guns. If not he is a hypocritical ass.