No, not you or any one person in particular, moreso individual language and statements. It's just a bad habit it seems like is creeping into online culture a lot, where everyone is ultra touchy and so accustomed to reading inflammatory rhetoric they almost can't see anything else. I just hate to see good dialogue devolve into talk radio sound bites.
I probably hate MLS more than the other leagues only because I don't care enough about them to hate them.
No, I don't care about those other leagues anymore, so the hate isn't as real in a way. But I used to watch all of them, used to follow teams in them, and over time, I began to hate them for real reasons, many of which caused me stop caring more and more.
You do understand what Capitalism is!?! When MLS gets to the point where the teams are independent entities, the teams are going to go in very different directions and we are all going to have those three leagues in this country. That's how life works. Or do you think a lawyer for example should get paid the same as a McDonald's cook? Not that I agree with how those three leagues are run and so glaringly stacked, but that's life? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
But what you call 'hamstringing yourself,' I think of as 'being impartial.' So to rephrase your question, do you think the league is in a phase where: a) attracting attention to itself is so important that giving the impression that it's an impartial, honestly-run sports league is not an important concern; or b) the league is sufficiently stable and robust that the league office's concern should be impartially, fairly executing the league rules and letting the league's competition speak for itself. I think we've established that the league still sees a) as applying. Putting aside the fact that I disagree, my rather depressing (for me) suspicion is that the league will always see itself as being in state a), simply because of single entity. Since the league is not a collaboration between a set of financially independent organizations, but is instead one company in which the team investor/operators are shareholders, I suspect there's always going to be a "what's best for the league as a whole" mentality, even if that means the league isn't impartial. Except there aren't any owners. There are only investors in MLS who, as part of their investment in MLS, have the right to operate a division of the company. One of the things Hanauer said in the post-acquisition interviews called attention to the league's poor television ratings, and that moves like this one are an attempt to improve those. To me, though, that isn't a very compelling argument because I can't see Dempsey's arrival in Seattle improving TV ratings much. The simple truth is that the vast majority of folks in the U.S. have no idea who Clint Dempsey is. For that matter, most Americans don't know who Lionel Messi is either. Arguments like this one would work for Beckham, who was not only a soccer star, but a famous model with good looks and an internationally famous pop star wife. If he had only been a really good soccer player, the reaction to his coming to MLS would have been a lot more muted and would have been confined only to the people who are already fans of the sport.
I agree with this, because I think for 18 years people have been running around thinking there is some magical silver bullet that is going to make MLS popular. I just don't think that's true. To me, you run a good league, with a good level of play, good fan experiences, something that compels people (drama), and over time, more and more fans are going to be drawn to it. I feel like the clock is ticking in soccer's favor in this country, and so long as you don't do anything to screw with it, it will have its day without Beckham or Dempsey or Messi.
Remember the early days, with offside not called outside the 35 yard line, shootouts, etc....It was assumed that Americans weaned on pointy ball could not abide a sport which made it so hard to score. At least we have progressed beyond that. And I agree that good play and good fan experiences will draw more fans to the game. (Another thing that would help would be so-called "all sports" radio stations hiring analysts who know soccer and don't disparage the game.) But another thing that would help immensely would be a decent showing in the World Cup. And another would be a second WC in the USA, but that would require a complete change in FIFA leadership, since it is unlikely that bribes would be offered on the scale required.
When you are a league with at least three national TV partners and you have a weekend go by where none of your games are on TV; and the league Twitter account tells you that there's a game being streamed live on the web instead of addressing the fact there's no game on TV, then the issues you have with television ratings are a fair bit larger than getting Clint Dempsey to play the majority of his games at 10pm Eastern. Thx, Jay!
Not only that... fighting against the now much more prominent EPL for viewership isn't going to be easy. I think MLS ratings will continue to lag MLS's popularity in the US.
In my head, we're somewhere between a and b. But we're definitely not to b yet. The league is still primarily a single-entity. They've been handing out more freedom and responsibility as time goes on. They're still the rich uncle, but that won't always be the case, simply because it won't make economic sense for it to be the case one day. I think if you game it out, you end up with profitable teams that deep pocketed and savvy owners will demand more control of and profit from. Single-entity starts to look more like social security than socialism. Again, if the league is good at nothing else, it's changing the rules. And I think signing Dempsey is a great move, because he's a damn good player with great foot skills. You're right - the name alone isn't that meaningful right now, but there's a chance a legend grows that will be.
Late to the party on this one and I am sure that after 8 pages the discussion is somewhere on another planet but I could not possibly agree with this original post anymore than I do. I will not wait for a stadium to see things turn around on the field. We are a small fish in the MLS pond and our owners can and need to change this.
Any time you can get a player of that ability in his prime what's not to like even if he isn't directly what you need. Having said that Dempsey is such a complete player that his ability to hold the ball in midfield or up top allows the defense time to recover. That in and of itself is a major, major upgrade for the defense.
I think you're missing the point. Many teams in the league may either not be willing to pay Dempsey his salary or that city may not be one that a star like Dempsey is willing to go. The question becomes is MLS better off bringing in stars of Dempsey stature and increase the quality of play in the league and attendance throughout the league or rigidly adher to a policy and pass on these players. The fact remains that if MLS can obtain a serious talent, it is in the League's best interest to get them especially when this moves MLS to its 2020 goals and increases the likelyhood of a better tv deal. I find it somewhat ironic that MLS is blasted for being single entity and when clubs that can bring money to bear on increasing the level of play this is "unfair". I do think however, that MLS needs to be more straightforward and transparent with its rules so that when this type of situation comes up the response is clear.
Rules? What rules? What is fair? Bottom line, the other 18 owners (or "investment groups") are OK with the Dempsey deal, so who are we, the supporters, to get upset about it? As far as the "hate MLS" goes, I don't think I actually hate the league, but I don't watch any MLS games not involving DC. There are only so many hours in a week, and I'm going to watch higher quality soccer (like EPL) when I can. I used to have directkick back in the day, but once I got FSC that all changed.
I watch both. . . because I have the time. . . because I don't have friends. . . because I don't shower. No, I know there is a lot of MLS hate right now and I understand the accusations of fixing that are flying around, but honestly, I generally find MLS games a lot more interesting because the playing field is more level, league shenanigans notwithstanding. I can only watch one of the Manchesters play against a bunkered down Midlands team so many times per season before I get bored with it. MLS games tend not to have that mismatch of strength unless you're watching a team named DC United. Going all the way back to the idea of MLS 3.0, assuming the deal goes through, the owners will have just tossed 150 million at DC United. I would be surprised to see another DP, let alone a really big money DP, before the stadium is built, and maybe even a year or two after. Maybe Thohir has that money to throw around, but I just see it as a bad investment. I think there is an assumption that attendance will get a big boost when the new stadium opens, regardless of DC's place in the league. Of course, it would probably get a bigger boost if DC had successful years beforehand, but the question is "how much bigger and how much would it cost?" I figure the ownership will aim for midtable for the years leading up to the stadium's completion and maybe, if they're inclined at all to buy a big name player, introduce him before the stadium's inaugural season or maybe one or two season's later when the buzz begins to fade around the team. Of that may depend on how many season tickets are being sold for the new stadium - the response is underwhelming, they might buy a DP to try to bolster those sales. Don't misunderstand, as a fan, I hope I am totally wrong and admit that I have no insider knowledge. I just think, to the extent that it is a business, the stadium is going to be generating hype and they probably know that some people are going to hold off on buying tickets until the new stadium opens, even if the team is doing well and has a famous player or two, so they won't get the "full return" on the investment until the new stadium opens.
I don't. I simply don't accept that the premise you're pushing is the only relevant consideration. Various people have already made this exact same argument numerous times in the last week, and I've (and others have) replied with why it's not that compelling. Basically, it appears to me that you're adopted a position going in that isn't the only sensible possibility. Yes, if you define "the League's best interest" as "whatever makes the investors in the league the most possible money," then yeah, there's a strong argument to be made for the league throwing its impartiality aside, reaching in and choosing to directly help some teams and disfavor others -- even, as they are now, helping out the teams that are already rich and well off, and disfavoring those who aren't. Those who see such moves as damaging the credibility of the league *as a sports league* are smaller in number than the folks who don't know any better that the league would like to turn into butts in seats and television viewers. If, OTOH, one thinks that it's in the league's best interest to be taken seriously as a sports league rather than to be seen as canned entertainment that isn't really on the up-and-up, then moves like this seem problematic. There's no question that it's a fact of sports leagues that some teams are going to be better off than others and thus have more options; but in my mind, the league shouldn't dump impartiality and explicitly work to accelerate that trend. The folks who run a sports league should be impartial to the competition within it; the extent to which they're not is the extent to which it's not actually a real sports league. When the survival of the league was still very much in doubt, moves like this to secure its future were easier to sell. But that isn't the case now. This isn't about the survival of the league; it's just about it doing better financially than it already is. And so impartiality is thrown aside for the sake of a greasy buck. That makes this "league" seem to me like even more of a joke than it already does. Speaking only for myself, my problem isn't with "clubs bringing money to bear on increasing the level of play." My problem is with MLS giving an already rich club $9M in free money to do it. And as an aside, I find the claims that Clint Dempsey's arrival will bring significantly more people into the stadium and help get a better TV deal kinda absurd. Try walking down the street in Anytown USA and asking random people who Clint Dempsey is: nobody who's not already a soccer fan will have a clue. And based on my experience, those who are fans of the sport but not of MLS aren't going to change in significant numbers because Dempsey is here. Beckham could produce that kind of reaction, but not because he was a great soccer player: it was because he was also a famous, good-looking model with a famous pop-star wife. The masses don't give a crap about Clint Dempsey. Bring over a kajillion other Clint Dempseys, to raise the level of play of the league as a whole (and not just a team or three), and some of the soccer-fan-but-not-MLS-fan types will start paying attention. But that sort of overall improvement of the quality of the league, done in a slow and steady fashion, is the course the league *had* been on and now appears to be abandoning.
Right. Which is why some of us are bummed by the fact that the league seems to want to go in that direction, and away from the level playing field you describe.
I agree with those who say that we won't get many highly paid players until the stadium is built. It's not just a matter of money, it's a matter of players not wanting to come to DC. Unlike us fans, who only go to the games, the players have to report to DCU's shitty facilities every day - it's their workplace. Why would any good player (with other options) choose to come to DC?
I get that ... but I'd imagine that would be less of a problem with top Central American, Caribbean and most South American players. After all Will Chang was able to bring in 2 solid internationals in Boskovic and Salihi just on his own. Those 2 could of easily stayed in Europe. Now the team is 2/3 times richer not to mention the tons of allocation funds we have. Personally I don't think it's the stadium that's holding up the signings. I think there's something else going on. I think the signings aren't happening because the owners realize that there's no reliable structure in place to identify good players, negotiate good contracts and incorporate them once they come in.
Well I think if there is anything approaching certainty on the stadium deal, players won't have any worries about joining the team. Yes, the facilities are sub par at the moment, but if you believe the team is ambitious, has money, and has a plan to set everything right, you may not be as worried about it. I think you are probably right about the infrastructure in the FO-- and/or they realize that there's not much return on their investment in a DP. To me, if they are ready to slice out a few ticket reps to save money, why would they want to spend 7 figures on a DP and still not return a profit?
We might as well start a thread on the 2013/14 off-season - NONE of these issues here about the talent and coaches and front office will be addressed until then I expect front office moves in the off-season - This may start with the appointment of an "advisor" who will propose one (or more) candidate(s) for General Manager, or maybe they'll come up with one on their own I expect Kasper will be at least offered a postion of "chief accountant" - Again, I'll state that IF he's been heavily in making key decisions, he's done very poorly - BUT, he is pretty savvy about MLS rules on payroll structures, etc - You don't throw something like that away - Now, IF he is offered this, he may not accept it, since it would be a step down - While our new owners are not "soccer" people, they are "sports franchise managers", and hopefully know the value of somebody who knows the league payroll rules After the GM situation is settled, or quite likely along with it, then I expect a re-structuring of the coaching staff - It would be really tough IF DC United wins the USOC, but it could be done anyways And then, we can talk about DC United joining the ranks of MLS 3.0
By this you are meaning that if we win the USOC it would be tough to fire Ben Olsen? I don't think it would be. His record, on various points, is more than enough, to get fired after this season--USOC or not. Even moreso if they can leverage the stadium deal into luring a credible candidate by year's end. If Ben Olsen is retained, which I think is going to happen, he DESPERATELY needs to do that staff restructuring himself. And if he's not, and we get a new coach and still for some reason Ashton is around, I might eat a bullet.