Questioning the American format

Paul Berry · Jun 6, 2017

ThreeApples said: ↑

1) The older colonies (US, Canada, Australia) had "football" long before there was association football. Just as in England, football was informal and played with many variations at schools and in towns. When these societies gained enough leisure time that standardization of sport became important to them, they all made their own decisions on how football should be played. There was plenty of cross-influence, but nobody felt the need to just follow what some other country was doing. They weren't going to be playing England, they were going to be playing some school or club from the next state over.

2) In the later colonies such as India or South Africa (the white population in South Africa, anyway) there was a powerful influence from the colonial ruling elite, whose games were cricket and rugby, not the working class soccer football.

3) In countries that were not colonies, like Italy or Argentina, exposure to British influence did not come via a ruling class, but through British trade, which brought working class merchant sailors into their ports, and with them their working class game.

This doesn't explain everything, but it's part of the deal.
Click to expand...

Seven years after the fact, I'd like to point out that the US was never a colony.

owian · Jun 15, 2017

Paul Berry said: ↑

Seven years after the fact, I'd like to point out that the US was never a colony.
Click to expand...

True but 13 of the current States and about 40% of the current contiguous US were.

bigredfutbol · Jun 16, 2017

The 13 colonies broke away long before the rise of organized, codified team sports. OTOH, the Anglo influence and ties to Britain were always strong, particularly in the late 19th century. You could call the USA a "cultural" colony in some ways, I suppose.

dundee9 · Jul 7, 2017

Cruoninga said: ↑

This subject probably has come along before, but I could not find any current thread that does. Apologies if there is any.

As an European I have never understood the American way when it comes to the format of your soccer leagues (and probably all your major leagues, but this is a soccer forum), but since I am not brought up with this sport tradition I might miss the advantages.

I have the following questions:

1. Why are the MLS clubs not independent from the league itself? When the league goes defunct, all the teams in it dissapear as well. I believe it would be great if NY Cosmos, LA Aztecs and Tampa Bay Rowdies were still around. Wouldn't it be better for American soccer if the clubs would exist independent of the league so they can survive when the league is wound up, to join another league later on?

2. How can a soccer league go defunct in the first place? As far as I know of, no European league after world war II has stopped operating. What was the reason the NASL ceased to exist? If attendances dropt, the league might see some bad days, but it appears very strange to me it just went out of business completely. A bad league still seems better to me than no league at all.

3. Why isn't it possible to go down and up between the different American leagues? Wouldn't it add an extra dimension to the sport if the teams at the bottem of the table had something to play for as well? At the same time, attendances at the 2nd tier would increase for there is a MLS-spot to play for.

4. What about this draft system? As far as I get it, young players are not contracted by the clubs, but by the MLS, who distributes them by the draft format at which the club that finished bottem has the first pick. If there is no possibility of going down, why not just finish bottem on purpose if there is nothing to play for anymore? This would provide you with the best MLS youngsters.

5. The intention behind the draft system seems to limit the differences in quality between the clubs. Last season's bottem team has the first pick, and the best team has the last. What is wrong with establishing a soccer elite of the best clubs? They would just be rewarded for their own performances. Ain't it ironic that the forerunner of capitalism has this kind of "socialist" system when it comes to sport?

Are you all in favour of these rules and formats? And if so, do you think it might even be better for Europe to 'Americanize' their leagues?
Click to expand...

The majority of soccer fans in the USA according to polls are not in favor of this system. It is the system we unfortunately have because of the cartel that is MLS and its collusion with the USSF.

You're starting to see better football atmosphere at fourth tier clubs like Detroit City FC than you do at many MLS clubs. The reason is Detroit City is a real club built up organically and connected to the community while Houston or Dallas (or insert any franchise with dull atmosphere) are plastic inauthentic franchises.

Master O · Jul 7, 2017

dundee9 said: ↑

The majority of soccer fans in the USA according to polls are not in favor of this system. It is the system we unfortunately have because of the cartel that is MLS and its collusion with the USSF.

You're starting to see better football atmosphere at fourth tier clubs like Detroit City FC than you do at many MLS clubs. The reason is Detroit City is a real club built up organically and connected to the community while Houston or Dallas (or insert any franchise with dull atmosphere) are plastic inauthentic franchises.
Click to expand...

Wow man, that's really insulting to fans of those teams. I bet you wouldn't say that in their BigSoccer subforums.

An Unpaved Road · Jul 13, 2017

Mostly it's the sport, not the system. If there was something intrinsically inauthentic with the American franchise system we would not have the four major leagues in the U.S. It's not hard to find NFL fans who rarely if ever actually go to games, but view their team as a legit part of their lives. Conversely, jumping around and singing at a minor league soccer game for 90 minutes does not indicate a more authentic dedication to following a team, although certainly it can be a great core of interest to build on.