I don't know about other clubs, but I know Liverpool have their CWC trophy proudly displayed on their trophy wall. The old Toyota Cup was a prized trophy. And we (DCU) seemed quite proud of the Interamerican Cup. Real competition between international clubs will be valued by clubs and fans imo. The new format is a once every 4 years tournament with 32 teams from around the world, including US teams (Seattle has already qualified). FIFA will promote it. There's money to be made. We'll see.
USSF events are not part of MLS broadcast partnership deals. The tournament is not part of the broadcast partner inventory. Scheduling has been heavily influenced the past season by apple and their lack of familiarity with live sport broadcasting schedules.
MLS teams have won every single US Open Cup except 2 since 1996 and all of them since 2000. This is functionally an MLS tournament, and we have an MLS tournament already. It's different from the FA Cup in several ways- less money and reward for the USOC, less prestige for the USOC, the USOC is not as old as the FA Cup, way more viewers in the final rounds in the FA Cup with more notable teams playing. The idea that it is controversial to instead support international tournaments where US teams are challenged by Mexican and other clubs over the USOC is really beyond me. The last 10 USOC averaged about 18,200 butts in seats versus 25,000 for the Leagues Cup. The viewership for the Leagues Cup (albeit skewed by Messi) has been wildly higher than the USOC. Interest in the USOC has peaked, seemingly, and when the matchups are REAL boring, it gets real ugly (i.e. <16,000 attendance, and far less than 800k viewers across all platforms). It makes absolute sense to focus on tournaments that increase the prestige and reputation of MLS over those that don't. The "best case" for some people posting in support of the USOC is one where MLS teams second stringers get embarrassed by bad lower division US teams so they can laugh at how shitty MLS is.
I love the timing on when this was released. MLS is acting like the White House releasing a press statement late on Friday to hopefully bury the story.
Instead of the USOC, we should emulate the NBA and have an in-season tournament. That would rule. The in-season tournament was literally a genius move.
First off f_ck Apple, f_ck Garber and f_ck Levien. Pretty certain that they don't have a single F to give for division 1 status. All they care about it putting on soccer exhibitions and raking in TV money. I don't think that they care about going to the club world cup and getting wiped out by B teams from Man City, Real, etc. Second, I saw a little bit of banter on this on twitter, isn't there some requirement that every team in the league be represented? If so what will DCU do? We don't have an MLS Next team. Seems like a massive opportunity to actually win the tourney with no one else sending a team of that DCUs caliber if we were to send first team players instead of the usual academy players like numbers 79 and 84. There would have to be some inducement from MLS to Levien to not go out and win it if we were sending players from our first team roster. Third, MLS will eventually blink. This would represent a massive opportunity for USL which is still light years from challenging MLS, but would significantly boost their trajectory. I am not sure that MLS wants to risk getting knocked off its pedestal in 15-20 ys. Not sure its that soon, but all bets are off if USL implements pro/rel and can market itself as a "top tier" option, even if its not quite there, which US networks seem to be snapping up left and right. Right now USL will never pass MLS. There have to be some deep pocket investors looking for an opportunity that they can't get their foot in the door for, that MLS isn't interested in. USL would represent a much lower initial outlay for a franchise, for facilities, for players and would prolly grow fast. I am sure there are a lot of fanboys looking for a good excuse to move on from MLS. Isn't that kind of like what Leagues Cup is? Which BTW is a colossal turd.
Didn't NWSL have an in-season tournament .... until this upcoming year when it will be abandoned (or re-marketed, same name but only 1 game). Not really familiar with much of anything NBA does except fighting, that's all that makes the news. I love the Open Cup and I have never understood why I should care at all about the Leagues Cup (or whatever that weird thing is called), so I'm obviously not their target demographic ..... as they keep trying harder and harder to remind me of.
First off, every single one of us should be interested in the financial growth of the league and viewership of the league. We are only getting better players now overall because we have higher wage allotments and other salary schemes. If you want to increasingly become competitive, you need money. It's absurd to say this is an evil that needs to be somehow shamed. Second, MLS is a collective organization beyond what other sports leagues in the US exist as. No team can send a contingent to the USOC if MLS says first teams can't go. They can't do it. Third, they will not blink because the USOC has had multiple years recently where less than 800,000 people were watching the finals overall, including in the stadium. It provides no value to MLS to have such an unserious tournament. It is very clear that international competition as part of tournaments DOES influence viewerships and is generally perceived as more prestigious. The data simply shows it as clear as day. The USL will in no way challenge MLS going forward. It's absurd. The locations of teams alone makes it completely untenable to overtake MLS given promotion and relegation in our lifetime, assuming optimal conditions and a complete failure of MLS overall. Lastly, no the Leagues Cup isn't what the in-season tournament is. However, to your point, if the Leagues Cup is a turd, with 33% better attendance for the finals, and 50% better viewership, what is the USOC? When you wonder if a tournament is worth it, you can ask yourself questions like this: "Assume your star player is hurt indefinitely in the course of winning a tournament. Is the tournament worth it in that case?" For the US Open Cup I would say absolutely ********ing not. For the MLS Cup, I would say yes but still be quite upset about it.
What makes it very cool is that the games in the in-season tournament count toward regular season records (with the exception of the final match), so early season matches count even more than ever. Second, the cash prize was designed to be a substantial amount of money for players on lower salaries. 500k per player on the winning team is huge for bench and support players. For MLS the prize wouldn't be as good, but it would easily be twice to three times the minimum salary for each player on the squad. HUGE for young guys on trial contracts.
Goff with some interesting commentary: MLS drops U.S. Open Cup, which showcases soccer's charms - The Washington Post <snip> . . . A lower-division club packs a humble park for a muscular visitor. A journeyman who dreams of an MLS contract scores a once-in-a-lifetime goal from great distance. A goalkeeper who plays soccer as a side hustle makes the clinching save in a shootout. These are the moments that help make soccer so appealing in much of the world. It’s Grimsby Town, from England’s fourth flight, pulling off five upsets against higher-tiered opponents, including Premier League’s Southampton, to reach the FA Cup quarterfinals last spring. It’s third-division Union Omaha advancing to the U.S. Open Cup’s quarterfinals in 2022 and second-tier Sacramento Republic playing for the title the same year. It’s D.C. United winning the 2013 crown amid a 3-24-7 regular season. That was the most recent of United’s three Open Cup titles, which rank fourth among MLS teams. Because United is the only U.S.-based organization yet to launch a MLS Next Pro team — it has plans to do so in Baltimore — D.C. will have no presence in the 2024 tournament. Since 1996, only one non-MLS team has won the trophy. The Rochester Rhinos, now defunct, sprung from the second division in 1999. But that misses the point. It’s the journey and storylines that make the Open Cup special — and what make soccer like no other. MLS, though, has put its own self-interests ahead of the game at large. For that, Garber and the league deserve a red card.
Who cares how many people watch it. That's all on MLS Clubs lack of marketing or care. If they hyped it up and made it something to care about people would care. If they played their first teams people would care. If they didn't hold the matches at a dirt patch in Maryland people would care. The clubs don't want to host these because they can't figure out how to market them to justify the cost of game day expenses. That's it. Fcuk leagues Cup, Campeones Cup, Glorified friendlies, etc. Shit matters when people want it to matter. MLS is punting on US Soccer for their own McDonald's franchise. Fcuk MLS. Always hated it, always will. DC United > MLS.
The first part of my sig is proving as true as ever. I still fantasize the end of single-entity which drives all of this shit.
I really do not understand this sentiment - please to explain. Unlike some clubs, DCU did not exist prior to MLS. There was not going to be a DCU but for MLS. KP and Neil Tyra and the others were not in the process of putting together a team before MLS came up as a potential league. So DCU is MLS, it is not really a thing apart from MLS. Should there every be another D1 league, there is a greater chance of winning the powerball than DCU joining that other organization.
You can love your local team without having to respect the league they're in (you can like your friend but hate their parents, etc.) - I mean in college football terms, people still like their team if it belongs to the SEC, but no-one has any respect for the conference
This is such a wild conversation. As mentioned DC is MLS and vice versa. The only things that really matter to this organization (DC United) are the MLS Cup and SS, followed by any competition that pits us against equal or better opponents (i.e. international competition) and maybe distantly followed by charity tournaments or other activities (i.e. preseason tourneys, charitable events, friendlies and the USOC). The idea that our loyalty shouldn't be to the organization that acts as the vessel to improve our payroll and increase the quality of player on the field and instead should be lesser organizations in the USL and other divisions is something else. Let's also remember that for decades prior to the founding of MLS, professional US teams didn't even really join the USOC. From 1996 on professional teams began to join and this is simply a return to the pre-1996 era as the involvement of MLS teams completely outshone the competition and made the tournament redundant to our own playoffs. [What I just wrote is another huge point we're missing: MLS provides a team with a supporters shield for most points in the league AND the MLS Cup for winning the season end tournament. In England, you win the league, and tournaments are extraneous to the league. That is another reason why an FA Cup has a use in England and we have no use here in the US.] We might actually have a tournament where a non-MLS team in USL or other lower division can actually win as a bright spot.
Yes, I have said that many times: I only care about MLS Cup because it gets entry into international competitions - in my mind the best measure of how good our team is. If there were other quality leagues (either D2 or even possibly but unlikely another D1 league) then the OC provides an opportunity for inter-league play. Unfortunately, as things are now, most MLS teams will beat most lower level teams day-in and day-out.
for sure. It just seemed to me the way he said "DCU > MLS" implied DCU is something other than MLS, like, "Dang, why did she decide to marry into that family?"
DC started out in 1996 with their shit together and outperformed all of the other teams in both the onfield and front office, fan outreach, etc. Then MLS started to change rules to spread the wealth to other teams in "bigger" markets. From that point forward MLS wasn't the beneficial single entity that existed to make a true first division in the US sustainable but a franchise operation to benefit existing clubs with new franchise fees. The soccer equivalent of Amway. Since then the only progress toward a true level playing field has been clawed from the owners by the MLSPA. MLS is a scam and until they spin off the clubs it will continue to be an entertainment venture with local sports exhibitions.
Garber's reason for abandoning it is fixture congestion and a lack of quality. Well, Garber, you freaking dumbass, you did nothing this year to pare back the roster and salary restrictions that mean most of spots 15-28 on an MLS roster couldn't make it on a League Two side. And, yes, I mean the good League Two. And yet, you continue to dilute the pool by expanding. You've also crushed the season into 7.5 months so you can have half the teams in the league participate in MLS cup, and have introduced 2 new competitions in addition to the Open Cup, CCC and an all star game. And how many pointless friendlies did DC have to throw in? Three? So yeah, even the quality of the MLS team games is often embarrassing. THIS IS YOUR DOING, GARBER. You don't get to act so shamefully hypocritical. But to your point, Shammy, the USSF doesn't fund the Open Cup the way it should. Production values range from nonexistent to the Coen Brothers. I know you're mainly playing to type here, but I absolutely think it should be a serious thing. The fact that it's mostly not is the USSF's fault. MLS has split off from using the USL and playing in the Open Cup. It's now a self-contained pyramid in competition with the USL - for all intents and purposes, in competition with the entire USSF. That's kinda dangerous. Which is one reason I don't have a problem letting MLS Next Pro teams compete. I think it's actually a great idea, now and going forward. Now fix MLS, soup to nuts, so they can handle the fixture congestion gracefully and get back to competing in the second oldest competition of its kind. But the marketing and the product really does have to be better.