Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer in the USA' started by bigredfutbol, Mar 12, 2016.
What percentage of MLS teams play in NFL stadiums owned by their investors?
You don't see any conflict of interest in the same individual being in charge of both the USSF and MLS? Wow.
It wasn't a conflict of interest, it was a commonality of interest.
The USSF needed a pro soccer league and noone else was willing to make it happen. There was no conflict of interest as there was no competition for a full- time domestic league.
The head of the Mexican FA ran two Liga MX clubs, the national stadium and was VP of the biggest TV company. Now that's a conflict of interest!
As you'll notice I said that outside of a couple specific instances I was not in favor of getting rid of it.
I can agree with this. For sporting cultures that chafe at and do everything possible to undermine regulation, pro/rel incentivises a very risky business strategy.
So why didn't Rothenberg quit from being USSF president to avoid any potential conflict of interest?
I have not run out of arguments.
You are replying to an example that in any context other than MLS, everyone in the world would say bears resemblance to a Ponzi scheme.
I mean, sure, seems fine to ignore the conflict of interest that financially ties the federation to a league it sanctions. Why not? I mean, I'm sure we can whatabout something about Mexico or Italy or somewhere.
MLS is literally is the only option to play Division 1 soccer in the USA. There is no competition, there are no alternatives.
OK? What is the point? The Texans increased a little less than 300%, are you suggesting the Dynamo are outperforming them? Despite the fact the Texans' gains in value are 10x the total value of the Dynamo?
What exactly is proven by the Dynamo's increase in value? Especially given their almost complete lack of support and aversion to paying for talent?
Their value has gone up because of Portland and Seattle and Atlanta and LAFC and the fact that the franchise has exclusive territorial rights to the 4th largest metro in the US.
There's not unlimited resources to be made right now in MLS. We've already had FC Cincinnati admit that they're waiting for their stadium to really start investing in being truly competitive.
Every cost will need to come out of something at some point.
Those are the MSAs. 50% of the population lives outside the top 40.
I'm not a lawyer but I believe that in order for there to be a conflict of interest, there needs to be an aggrieved/injured party.
Who was disadvantaged by Rothenberg leading both USSF and MLS?
That's the difference between an mls club set up from a business pov without a relation to the place it's put in.
Those Euro clubs are rooted in their community from before or very infant stages of pro football. Those saviours do that from a fan's pov, not to get the club rising to the top and play CL football.
Yawn. Once again you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.
There is competition, there could be alternatives.
First of all, the US had community based teams in their league for decades but the league never grew, quite the opposite in fact.
1954 ASL table:
1 Uhrik Truckers
2 Brooklyn Hispano
3 New York Hakoah
4 New York Brookhattan
5 Elizabeth Falcons
6 Newark Portuguese
7 Trenton Americans
8 New York Americans
9 Baltimore Rockets
(Hakoah was the legacy of an Austrian Jewish team wiped out by the Nazis. Brookhattan became Galicia-Honduras. The Rockets became Baltimore Pompeii.
Secondly, I've no doubt that Timbers fans, Sounders fans, even Cincinnati, NYC, LAFC and Atlanta fans etc, feel that their clubs represent their communities, even though some of those clubs have only been around for a couple of years.
With community based in Euro context is ment they started playing with lads from that community. These clubs were initially ment as spending leisure time doing what you like.
Wonder how many of the mls clubs in their first season had players born in the city the club has been placed.
Wonder why it matters to you in 2020.
There were at least 4 btw.
What are the percentage of games in Nissan, Century Link, MercedesBenz, Soldier, Gillette, since "the investors" are investing in "the league/SUM" ?
Please back up the assertion you are making rather than merely stating it.
Ok, it resembles a MLM model, then, if that somehow reads better for you.
Toronto's expansion fees have long since been paid by later expansion teams. Charlotte and Nashville will probably never have that benefit.
"Could" be. But aren't.
MLS has a monopoly. It doesn't have to be diabolical or even anti-competitive. The fact remains, they are the sole supplier of that good, which is, by definition, a monopoly.
It kills me that the slightest bit of skepticism against how MLS operates renders the questioner some wild-eyed bomb thrower.
It's healthy to question the relationship of organizations to their regulators (especially in a notoriously corrupt environment as world soccer). It's important to ask if what is best for one league has adverse effects on others. It's reasonable to speculate if the current model has flaws that should be addressed.
This does not mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This does not mean that MLS should ditch single entity or that they should be forced to institute pro/rel. But I think it's reasonable to be skeptical that the billionaire owners of MLS have the best interests for all aspects of the federation's purview in mind. And I also think it's reasonable to question how much influence they hold.
I think we can have reasonable discussions about the sport in this country; its health; its future; its potential; and disagree on any and all points without being dismissive, condescending, or mocking.
It's not always going to work that way, but I hope we, as a group, can work towards discouraging that behavior on this thread, which often veers into unnecessarily uncivil territory.
Not really. I'm already interested in my local club despite no pro/rel. Watching USL grow is exciting to me in its own right. I don't need MLS (or an alternate Division 1) to validate my appreciation of local soccer.
Charlotte and Nashville probably would come by the time MLS will get a new broadcasting contract. Remember, how do EPL clubs get revenue? Points to broadcasting money.
Among teams. Among players. From MLS to lower divisions...
They aren't the sole supplier of professional soccer.
Look at the CAS case. MLS doesn't carry water for US Soccer in terms of governance. MLS only has 14% of the vote in AGM and can only appoint 2 members in US Soccer's BoD. The ones with a good amount of power are the youth and adult councils which control 51% of the vote.
You name-calling MLS doesn't help.
Like, us fans can't really do anything besides supporting domestic soccer, the bare minimum, US Soccer isn't Congress.
You missed a couple.
Nissan - publicly owned, temporary use by MLS;
Soldier Field - publicly owned, temporary use by MLS (hopefully);
Centurylink - publicly owned;
BC Place (CFL) - publicly owned;
Bank of America - publicly owned;
Gillette - temporary home (say the Krafts, but noone believes them);
Mercedes-Benz - I'll give you that one.
Excuse me, the original claim was that owners are investing in MLS to fill empty dates at their venues. Nissan and Soldier Field are not being used by a MLS team owned by the NFL team owner. In fact, CenturyLink isn't either as I believe Paul Allen's estate has been bought out of the Sounders. And Gillette dates back to one of the original MLS owners. So really the only new team matching your claim is Atlanta. (Also NYCFC at a stretch).
Welcome to the U.S. in the 21st century, its not 19th century Europe here.
conflict of interest. n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties.
Otherwise known as "Rocco Commisso gets laughed out of court"
Please acknowledge that you understand that expansion fees aren't handed to other owners.
The Premier League is a monopoly, The Bundesliga more so.
But that's how you're behaving. Lets take for example the ponzi bomb you keep throwing.
Exactly. So how can the USSF be a neutral arbiter and regulator of soccer given the Rothenberg situation and, ongoing, SUM? The USSF's role is not to be a promoter of a single league and the expense of others, especially when said league operates as an effective cartel.
I stand corrected. Lately, MLS is where one invests if they want to partake of the public to private transfer of wealth involved with large taxpayer funded municipal stadium projects.