It seems to be a hybrid cross between Ebonics and Esperanto. This just proves that steroids are not the only drugs causing problems in the world of sports (fans).
i also like this philosophy, and it should be noted that the people who don't believe will eventually die off.
lol. die off. true enough. While there was no real news in the article for your average BS MLS obsessie, I am sure that for normal people the article will be eye opening. I doubt many people realize the successes that MLS has had in the past couple of years since the dark days of retraction. Of course reading these boards you wouldn't think MLS was very healthy either, there are more than enough people who think the league is going to hell. Overall a great article. Mentions both the trials and successes of MLS in the various operations that it has. I liked it. Might even buy that issue of TIME to show people it.
If this is true then I would think the DC SSS deal is also going to happen. I don't think a new invester would buy DC with out a stadium deal with it. This could be great news for MLS!!!
According to Soccer United Marketing's website, it owns promotional and marketing rights to Mexican National Team games on U.S. soil. Although, admitedly games played on US soil account for a large percentage of El Tri's friendlies.
i wonder when Red Bull will release the blueprints of their stadium.. obviously TIME has seen them or atleast talked to RBNY about the stadium... anybody know anything?
SUM may manage the Mexican games on US soil but the USMNT OWNS El Tri Colors in all games not played in Mexico City.
The difference is a Big Soccer reader would have posted on this site, while the writer's article appeared in a national magazine Good coverage. Nice to see another article in a major publication aside from BusinessWeek's annual MLS update. One article I would like to read is one focused solely on the improvement of the on-field product. It's a story that is not told nearly enough.
The problem with this one is that it is highly subjective. I don't think many would argue that the depth is better in MLS than it has ever been, but I also think there is a fair question to be asked about the lack of higher quality players that MLS has had in the past like Etchevery, Stoichkov, Preki, Valderamma, Cienfuegos, Novak, Donadoni etc. Andy
A good article. I think the author may have got it wrong, though, when he suggested that SUM was a division of MLS. My understanding was that SUM was a completely separate legal entity that just happens to be owned by many of the same investors that MLS has. Or maybe it was just explained to me wrong. My guess is that MLS, the league entity, is designed in such a way that it is never expected to turn a profit. It pays the player salaries, which is a big chunk of league expenses, and has very little revenue since ticket sales are mostly claimed by the teams. This allows them to say that the individual teams are either making a profit, breaking even, or are close to doing so, even though the league HQ is losing money and makes for a nice tax loss for the investors. Meanwhile SUM has relatively few expenses but gets all the revenue from rights fees and things of that nature. But I'm just speculating.
What I really didn't like was the picture of that tw@t on the cover [rehash old argument]The article mentions 16 teams by 2010. Will we have a single table by then?[/rehash old argument]
"The way the league is managed, each MLS team has a $2 million salary cap. You can't buy a star with that kind of money. So the league is planning to allow each team to sign one marquee player, a designated star, who won't count against the salary cap. "Our long-term goal is to be one of the world's best leagues. We can't do that without investing in stars," says Gazidis." I've never heard of this, and was wondering what others on this thread think about this. On the surface, it sounds cool, but the more you think about it, it poses problems. First off, who is designated as stars? What are the rules for who can and cannot be a star? What if a star arises from the other players under the $2 million cap, and he wants to go to another team? Is he a star exempt from the cap, or one who counts against it? Just some issues that comes to mind.
You really should use Babblefish rather than posting foreign language articles verbatim here on BigSoccer.
Just an aside: I get the print edition of BrandWeek, and they cover MLS pretty well. There's a story re: U2, ESPN and the WC on the front page of the on-line edition now-soccer gets good coverage as well. If you interested in the sponsorhip and ad play in MLS, you should visit the site every now and then. At least once a month there's something US soccer related.
Good article, I learned some things I did not know, which is an achievement for these types of articles. Question, if the MLS wants to be a portal- will there be cross marketing with the World Cup during the MLS games played at that time? I'm thinking of going to the Rapids game on June 9th, but only if I can see the World Cup opener at the stadium or in the parking lot. Otherwise, I'll probably skip it and just go home and watch the World Cup which I'll be taping. The England game is at 7AM the next day so its a lot to take in.
MLS will not-cannot survive with a fence on the border. Immigration is a key sociological contributor to the changing population dynamics that eventually will favour MLS. can you imagine the next World Cup on US soil? probably by the time MLS is 25-30 years old? Wow that would be a measure of MLS concreteness as a league.