http://msn.espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/2002/1230/1484284.html This article from ESPN predicts ten business trends in 2003. From an MLS perspective, on the positive side are the growth of ethnic marketing, expanding international sports marketing, technology making more sports options available, and stadium naming rights as a source of revenue. On the negative side, the growth of high school sports and extreme sports are bad trends, in part because they are unproven markets that ESPN is likely looking at more optimistically than MLS. Applying the crystal ball to MLS in 2003, other trends: Increased partnership with USSF, marketing of individual personalities, movement towards soccer-specific stadiums in multiple markets. Lastly, expansion news involving one or two new Investor/operators in key cities? Other thoughts?
You seem to have left out the most MLS-specific comment in the article: "...despite a small bump in interest during the World Cup, Major League Soccer will never be considered a major sports league." Don't shoot the messenger.
Not shooting the messenger, but keep it in perspective. This guy hardly is offering anything visionary. Mass media outlets don't make money by ``breaking'' news, but covering news that people want to read about. The National Enquirer, The Weekly World News are two of the highest circulation publications in the country (and except for breaking Bill Clinton's tryst with Gennifer Flowers, and the latest Elvis sighting or alien abduction, I doubt anyone will hold up the Enquirer as a paragon of journalistic virtue or integrity). Mass market media are likely to contain opinions that belong in the status quo. They are likely to hire writers/editors, promote writers/editors that hold those status quo opinions. This guy probably thought, as many sports writers/editors did approaching the 1994 World Cup that it would bomb, then adjusted their opinion afterward to say it was a one-off event. This guy probably thought, as many writers/editors did in 1996, that MLS wouldn't last a season. I know many writers/editors who made both assertions and, now, like this guy, are saying, well it never will become a major sport. If they really believe that, why mention it at all. Be of good cheer this New Year's Eve, MLS's fan base is growing. Incrementally, but growing. The World Cup showing expedited the growth. Subconciously, they hafta know that. And it bugs 'em.
All true, and additionally, I pretty much discarded that throw away statement to analyze some of the actual trends in the sporting business the article analyzed. Certainly increased ethnic marketing, internationalization of sports, and greater access to sports options through technology are trends that will help MLS, regardless of whether the author thinks soccer will one day compete with basketball or not. Since the author didn't analyze the trends in relation to MLS, I thought here would be a good place to do so.
As an addition to that, I bet 10 beans that we can find a Rovell story from 2000 or so where he talks about how baseball exorcised the demons of the 1994 strike.
Good man. I totally agree with this approach. I actually considered taking the high road and abstaining from pointing that ridiculous quote out, but I just couldn't.
I agree with your assesment. I believe the author is showing his personal bias. What bothers me is his smug attitude towards MLS. If he's so good at predicting future trends maybe he should be working in Wall Street. His statment that MLS will never be considered a major sport bothered me. Is there something about soccer that Rovell feels threatened by?
Here is the paragraph that mentions MLS: "We realized that continued dominance by Tiger Woods and the Williams sisters is good for business and that parity is one of the keys to the NFL's business model. That despite a small bump in interest during the World Cup, Major League Soccer will never be considered a major sports league. And that NASCAR, the most sponsor-dependent sport, could survive a turbulent year of corporate budget trimming." I sent the article’s author, Darren Rovell, an email regarding his reference to MLS. Graciously, he sent me an email in return. I responded to it. Here are the three emails: Dr. Mr. Rovell, Thanks for mentioning Major League Soccer in you recent article. However, for future reference, I urge you to try to avoid sentences like the following: "That despite a small bump in interest during the World Cup, Major League Soccer will never be considered a major sports league." Or, at least try to also say some positive things about soccer. First, never is a very long time. Also, needless to say, soccer is still trying to gain a foothold in this country as a spectator sport. It would be great if soccer became more popular. It fosters teamwork, skill, fitness, quickness and decision-making ability; it's fun to play; and it provides fans with two 45-minute periods of commercial-free action in which the ball is almost always in play. Also, partly because it is the world's most popular sport, soccer provides a positive way for people of different cultures and backgrounds to come together. Finally, sentences such as the one that I have quoted might have a cumulative affect that makes it more difficult for soccer to catch on in this country. And positive sentences might have the opposite cumulative affect. Sincerely, ------------------------------------------------- Thanks for reading and writing. I find it very hard to believe that that sentence would do anything to slow down the progress of soccer in the U.S. I'd like to think that a lot of people take my words to heart, but it doesn't mean that much. I firmly believe that if the World Cup didn't do it, what else can? You are right never is strong, but I strongly believe that will be the case. I never said soccer was a bad sport or that it's not fun to play, I simply said it won't catch on this country on a professional level. I realize that soccer is one of the popular youth sports. Darren ------------------------------------------------- Darren, Thanks for the response. One thing to keep in mind: the known universe is about 15 billion years old. No one has a particularly good idea of what the most popular spectator sports will be in the United States in, say, 500 years. There are just too many variables. But maybe you mean that within the next 50 years it's unlikely that soccer will be as popular a spectator sport in the United States as is football, baseball or basketball. I would agree. But it's reasonable to believe that within the next 20 years soccer will be as popular a spectator sport in the US as hockey is. Soccer is a significantly more popular spectator sport now than it was 20 years ago. For instance, the US sold-out two World Cup qualifying matches at RFK Stadium; 20 years ago World Cup Qualifiers at RFK probably would have drawn only about 15,000 fans. Also, Major League Soccer (MLS) averaged about 16,000 fans per game over a 28-game regular-season; ten years ago we didn't even have a significant professional soccer league in this country. Finally, the Women's World Cup got excellent TV ratings, and the recent Men's World Cup drew respectable TV ratings, especially for the times that the matches were shown. Twenty years ago, there was no Women's World Cup. And the US men failed to even qualify for the '82 World Cup. Finally, demographics favor soccer's continuing growth as a spectator sport. Many of our new immigrants love soccer. Many of them have yet to be fully converted to MLS. MLS can market itself better to new Americans, for example, they should try to sign some good young Mexican players and place them in Los Angeles and Chicago. But because so many new Americans already love soccer and because MLS's owners are so wealthy and committed to the sport of soccer, MLS's has a good opportunity to win them over. Also, my generation is the first US generation to grow up with the sport of soccer, and, in general, we seem to enjoy watching the sport more than does our parents' generation. Moreover, the next generation seems to, in general, like watching soccer even more than does my generation. Finally, many women like to watch soccer. And women seem to be watching and attending sporting events more than they did 20 years ago. I guess my point is that there are not sufficient grounds for one to predict that soccer will never be big in this country. Moreover, your predicting that in your article didn't add to the article as a whole. It was superfluous to your main points. Also, it seems like positive comments by the media about soccer will help the growth of the sport and negative comments will hurt the growth of the sport. Jim Rome is an example of someone who probably is not helping soccer's growth as much as he would be if he said some good things about it. ------------------------------------------------- Comments: The email Darren Rovell sent me is interesting. Perhaps he really believes that it's unlikely that MLS will ever be "major league." However, as I indicated in my second email, which is long-winded, it's completely unclear what the most popular spectator sports will be in the US in, say, 500 years. Humans are so complicated. They are not like billiard balls or other inert matter. Free will adds another dimension. Will there even be a United States in 500 years? But the important point is that by his making said prediction Rovell does MLS, and soccer in general, no favors. He suggests that soccer will always be "minor league" -- both in terms of its level of popularity as a spectator sport in the US and in terms of the popularity that it merits. Many members of the US media often suggest that the general preferences of the American people is the key barometer of a thing's quality. So if "the American people" don't adore X, X must not be worthy of adoration. What should Rovell have said instead? How about this? The US Men's National Team has won a place as a significant part of the US sporting landscape: A good performance on the world's biggest stage; two covers of Sports Illustrated; lots of coverage in the newspapers; decent TV ratings; David Letterman; Good attendance for World Cup Qualifiers. Moreover, as far as MLS is concerned, a more apt characterization of its popularity would be "slowly growing." MLS has corrected some of the mistakes of the past (in particular, the shootout), stayed afloat, started to grow its attendance and helped develop many of those same players that helped the US national team in the World Cup and. This analysis makes sense, and it would help promote, rather than marginalize, the sport of soccer.
I would also have pointed out that four of the ten trends he identified for the coming year would have a positive impact on soccer, especially the growing internationalization of sports, technology making more sports options available, etc. Nice of him to reply, though.
Rovell doesn't have a responsibility to "help MLS by saying positive statements" about the league. He can say whatever he wants about the league. And he admitted in his reply that "never" was too strong of a word. But then you start in again with "who knows what the most popular sport will be in 500 years". The guy said he was wrong. You don't have to continue the arguement. Marc Connelly was right when he said that the soccer community often comes off like a bunch of whiners begging for people to come to their party. If he doesn't like the sport then that's fine. We don't need him. Murf
Agreed. And I think the biggest problem with Rovell's logic is that "the World Cup didn't do it." Well, the Cup ended six months ago. Look at six months of Enron's life and tell me how quickly things can change in the business world. Too many people like him, who have no money on the table, want quick-fix answers to a long-term issue. Too many people on these boards are the same way, what with threads calling for a coach to be fired based on one person who he calls into a camp or demanding a team be moved based on one attendence. Slow and steady wins the race. The developments of the last 18 months show me MLS firmly believes in that philosophy. They have made some good moves and some bad ones. But neither have been enough to "make it" or kill it. That's the philosophy I want. Not "Will the World Cup do it?"
1. According to Murf, "Rovell doesn't have a responsibility to 'help MLS by saying positive statements' about the league. He can say whatever he wants about the league." Murf, I agree that Rovell has no responsibility to say positive things about MLS. But partly for the reasons I mentioned in my emails, it would be good if he chose not to make statements like the one he made. Or at least it would be better for him not to make statements like the one in question than it would be for him to continue to make them. 2. According to Murf, "And he admitted in his reply that 'never' was too strong of a word. But then you start in again with 'who knows what the most popular sport will be in 500 years.' The guy said he was wrong. You don't have to continue the arguement." Murf, he did say the following: "You are right never is strong, but I strongly believe that will be the case" (emphasis added). So it's as if he conceded my point with one hand and took back his concession with the other hand. Was I unwarranted in responding in the manner that I did in my second email? In my second email, I did include the following charitable interpretation of his "never statement:" "But maybe you mean that within the next 50 years it's unlikely that soccer will be as popular a spectator sport in the United States as is football, baseball or basketball. I would agree." 3. According to Murf, "If he doesn't like the sport then that's fine. We don't need him." Murf, needless to say, Rovell has no moral obligation to enjoy soccer. Variety is the spice of life -- and all that! In fact, I believe he has no moral obligation to avoid bashing the sport of soccer, especially if he strongly dislikes the sport. But partly for the reasons I gave in my emails, it would be good if he chooses not to bash soccer and/or chooses to say some good things about it. A general thought: Some acts are not ethically obligatory...but it would be good if they were committed. Perhaps helping the little old lady across the street is an example.
A little off tangent, but warranted. It's noted that he has no obligation to MLS to be positive towards soccer. My question back to any of you out there is this: can anyone name another sport that is derided by American sports journalists (by and large, there are some great exceptions) except soccer? I read USA Today Sports section five days a week. I can't recall in the last two years a single article that was negative in tone to any sport other then soccer. Connolly has a point about many soccer fans whining too much, but there is also validity to those "whines". Even the "positive" soccer articles coming out during our World Cup run had at least one negative comment in each. This guy also has no obligation to NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, or NASCAR. How many negative comments did he write about them? MLB has been in an attendance slide for a few years now. IT's popularity with the masses is at an all-time low. None of those five organizations listed above makes the networks any money for owning their broadcast rights. The point? His using the negative terms towards MLS serve no purpose. Nobody can predict where the sports landscape will be in twenty years. Who thought NBA, NHL, or NASCAR would be where they are now back in 1982? He has no obligation to the positive statements, but to be so blatantly negative is just showing a personal prejudice against our sport. In an article such as his, venting a personal prejudice has no place or point. Since Garber came around, the last two seasons have seen attendance increases of 6% and 9% respectively. If that trend continues, where will MLS attendance be in twenty years? That stat would show that MLS has the potential to continue growth, which is very positive for our league. Sports trend for 2003: MLS attendance increases for the third year, new expansion teams announced and new investors entering the league. Potential for one or more SSS commitments.
How old is this Rovell dude?, if he,s over 50 you can,t teach an old dog new tricks. His mind set is Boreball and the other Football. He can say what ever about Soccer won,t change the fact that WE have an uphill battle and we are winning in some fronts.
word. and furthermore, I think it hurts soccer more -- particularly with middle-aged sports columnists -- when soccer fans try to defend the game as a business with anything but global numbers. He doesn't give a rats a$$ that soccer brings people together and is a wonderful cardio-vascular workout. He might, however, care to hear about Man. U's revenue numbers or viewership for Champions League semis or whatever.