Soccer, Sports and Politics - Part Deux

Well, we witnessed the rare occasion to see in one evening three Spanish clubs being beaten in the CL.....

 

Yes San Jose! Go get CR7!!!

 

San Jose would never get the backing from the league like Miami did to also get Suarez, Alba and Busquets.

 

Last year I met an old high school friend for dinner at a Chinese place of her choosing in the San Gabriel Valley near LA, where there’s a huge East Asian population and you can find multiple authentic permutations of the different cuisines, sometimes within the same shopping center. So when she asked me “what’s your favorite type of Chinese food?” my only answer was “Uhhhh…whichever one they serve at the place in my little town that sucks the least?”

 

Can't happen. The league bent over to let Miami get those guys. Like they did with Beckham. Things will get back to normal once he retires, and I'll be going to games again.

But part of the blame for this atrocity can be laid directly at Messi's feet. There'll be an asterisk next to everything that man wins here. He knows he needed to step down and not keep playing just to take trophies from players who won't ever reach his previous greatness.

"Played with the Yankees, now throwing 90mph fastballs at Little Leaguers' heads." Not a good look. There's a point where you just sit down and let others win what they can win.

 

If Pele, Cruyff and co. played in a league where the other teams have financial limits, they get the same. I'm commenting because this one hapowna to be a league with my club in it.

Easy solution is, if the owners can't afford to invest in the roster for the sole purpose of winning, they don't need to form a league. A footy club is not supposed to bw a moneymaker. It's supposed to be your passion after you earn enough that investing in the roster doesn't hurt your finances. Don't buy a team id you want to make money. That just hurts your fans. This happened not because Messi and the Vampire wanted cheap victories and another payday, but because MLS owners weren't properly vetted to ensure they'd spend big.

 

Quoted again to say that thia isn't about Messi's country. It's about what MLS allowed one club to do. And they thought somebody was gonna spend more on a ticket to see a better opponent... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Messi playa for someone else. There's absolutely no reason for a supporter od one xlub to want to see a famous player Messi got booed in Madrid. He should get booed in Atlanta and San Jose.

 

Well, that's the problem with all sports. Only the mega wealthy can afford the teams and there's never enough money for the mega wealthy. The Marc Cubans and Wyc Grousbeaks are few and far between.

Which come to think about it, it is probably the reason for the enduring appeal of college sports. No one is taking Duke basketball to Oklahoma City or Las Vegas.

 

“Supposed to” is all in your mind. Nobody else has any obligation to adhere to your expectations, least of all those whose money is involved.

 

I know. Worst, it takes lots of money to run a team, and these numpties at MLS think making lots of money for the owners = happiness for the supporters, like Miami speaks for all of us. No, Miami speaks for Tony Montana. I can speak for myself, and I take no pride in what that bought team accomplishes as an MLS franchise.

No, no relocation for the great school programs we've all come to love and follow. That's a big plus.

 

But there's always been a Messi-like situation for "certain" teams in MLS. Beckham before him, and going all the way back to the start of the league in 1996.

Jorge Campos in LA, because he'd draw all the Mexican fans, the Metro Stars got Roberto Diadoni and his $1million contract (when the "maximum" salary was $175,000) because New York is a big market, etc.

I grudgingly accept that this is the way it is, but I don't like the fact that when Miami comes to town, all these people come out of the woodwork to see him score against their local team.

 

Campos is no Messi or Suarez or Xabi or Biscuits or Alba or Fabregas. Miami got all them thru league shenanigans and the rest of the clubs who bought crap and coached it up to championship level are now prevented from competing.

And no, it won't be any fairer if by some heavenly miracle Inter doesn't win anything significant. The teams they beat will still feel the pain of being forced to bring a cap pistol to a nuclear war.

Reason #198,276,004,482,073 why America needs to stay out of the beautiful game until our citizens grow up enough to be able to support losing teams. Every league needs bottom dwellers. But they also need three or four who can win. If Miami loses, it'll be because America's obsession with parity created playoffs instead of using a proper single table.

It doesn't have to be that way. We all grew up understanding that soccer is won by spending. Don't start up a soccer league and try to inject artificial parity thru spending limits is all I ask. And don't start up a league where I live, making it essential for me ro support it rather than gloryhunting some Euro club a transatlantic flight away. That's not support. Do right by your citizens, USSF.

EDIT: yeah, it's disgusting when people who don't follow the game will turn out like Swifties or Madonna fans to see famous guy beating up on traffic cones at the end of his career. Shame on them AND on him.

 

Maybe in today's world of instant gratification (Hey! Git offa my lawn!) people need to feel some hope when it comes to their sports teams, but that wasn't always the case. No doubt it was a totally different world 70-80 years ago, but in Baseball (which could have had some kind of pro-rel system) had the same teams as powerhouses and doormats for decades at a time.

The Philadelphia A's had 2 good periods where they won 3-4 pennants each time and were contenders other years, but most of their existence they were terrible. The St. Louis Browns and Washington Senators had even less success. Meanwhile, the Yankees won a gajillion pennants. The NL wasn't as lopsided, but the Giants, Dodgers and Cardinals still won most pennants.

The thing is, even the really bad teams had fans. Not enough, you could argue, but when a lot of the cities had 2 teams one was inevitably better. Eventually the lesser team moved elsewhere in most cases, but these terrible teams survived for may years. And in 2 instances, the team that owned the shared stadium was the one who moved.

 

I've been hearing that the size of the market determines your wealth, not just gate receipts. Some say that's why the Yankees have been so good longterm. I often wish Atlanta had spent more on talent in the late 90s.

 

Those early-30s A's are on the short list of greatest teams ever. Al Simmons, Jimmy Foxx and Mickey Cochrane... That's a murderers row to rival any Yankees team. Lefty Grove as your ace.

Astounding.

 

Meh, you started following MLS when Atlanta was an expansion side.

Oftentimes, the league allows new/newer clubs to bend the rules, assemble a team, and win a few trophies. It happened in Chicago, it happened in Seattle, it happened in Atlanta, and its happening in Miami.

Long story short, what fire fans thought was "normal" never came back, and what Atlanta fans think is "normal" may not come back. Your initial calvinball boost is over, and now its up to your I/O.

Either they pour in the cash and make an effort, or they don't. And either they make a watchable product, or your Atlanta will become like the fire.



There is no (snicker) "normal" in that calvinball league.

 

Columbus tried to keep Lucas Zelarayan when they signed Rossi but the league rejected their plan. Then let Miami sign Barca’s core with no issue.

It’s a joke we have all heard before.

 

I hate you with the fiery intensity of 25 suns.

 

The Braves were an outlier because TBS made them a national brand.