Which teams have fan drawing players?

As I recieved a pamphlet from the SJ Earthquakes advertising season's tickets today, I started thinking to myself...with Donovan gone, who do I really want to see on the Quakes? Also, in general, how many MLS teams have the players that would make me really really want to see at least a game each year?

Based on my analysis, I determined that I find it more exciting (as a more or less soccer enthusiast, but not MLS fan just for the sake of MLS) that the players I'd really make an effort to see are either the very top rising prospects, or players who are international caliber and at the top of their game.

Only some of the teams have these players:
Dallas: EJ, Gibbs, maybe O'Brien
LA: Ruiz, maybe Kirovski and Ngwenya (just because he's young and fast)
Columbus: they are overloaded with Buddle, Martino, Szetela, Sanneh...maybe even Wingert for next year and Chad Marshall
DC: overloaded too: Freddy, Esky, Gros, Moreno (unfortunately Nelson is probably gone)
Metrostars: overloaded: Gaven, Clark, Guevara, Magee (youth promise), maybe Taylor and Glen if more PT, Walker
New England: Dempsey, Noonan, and Twellman (distant third just because I've seen him more than enough despite his relative young age)


And these really don't have anyone that exciting to watch:
Colorado: No one really except maybe Mastroeni or Peguero...but not enough to get me to go out of my way to see a game

KC: They have Klein, Zavagnin (for now), Preki, Arnaud, Meola (for now), Burciaga Jr....but none of them are really that exciting to watch except Preki, but I don't fancy watching players over-40 years old.

SJ: Ching, DeRosario, and Mulrooney just aren't enough...maybe if Alvarez gets some PT

Chicago: very borderline...they have Ralph, Dipsy, Jaqua (most exciting I think), Mapp...but not enough I don't think


So I guess that is 6 teams I'd really like to see play, and 4 that I would be sort of ho-hum about...But really I think the only team I really have little interest in is Colorado; at least KC, SJ, and Chicago all have some players that can do very exciting offensive things.

I know this is a naive and ridiculous thread, but I guess my point is that there are teams like DC, Columbus and NY who have all of these great young players getting playing time and also have some top notch older players, but I don't see that anywhere else in the league and it seems a little disproportionate.

 

I certainly understand and respect that view. And KC certainly can play some attractive soccer, and are obviously a very good team, one of the best in MLS. I just disagree with you because I don't think that they have any "superstars" or very promising "up and comers". I know that is certainly arguable, but I don't consider Preki, Zavagnin, or Klein to be superstars (they are all close, though), and similarly I don't think Arnaud is among the very most promising/exciting young players (be he too, is very close).

 

Adu will appeal to almost any audience...so his appeal is much broader. But, I think that exciting young players like Gaven, Dempsey etc. to appeal to people who know soccer and like soccer, but just don't have the motivation to watch MLS reguarly. So the latter two players appeal to a smaller audience, but that audience certainly is on the fence with MLS and could be convinced into becoming supporters.

Guevara and Ruiz both attract people probably on the same level as Gaven and Dempsey do among American fans, just because they are class players (and Ruiz is flashy), but both have the added bonus of attracting the hispanic fans. But I am an American fan, so I place them about equal to top "up and comer" type players for drawing power from my point of view.


Finally, I have to disagree with the statement by 12Wizards22 that KC has lots of superstars...that I guess just depends on what you define as a superstar. If you are going to say Meola is a superstar, well then you'd have a list of probably 1/4 to 1/2 the league (starters, that is) that are superstars, and that just isn't the case. Same with Zavagnin, sure he has played with the USMNT and may be in the running for a 2006 spot, but he isn't flashy and isn't really as exciting as Maestroeni, who is a very good player with more bit and skill I'd argue, but both player's defensive style really limits how exciting they are to watch. I mean, does anyone go watch Arsenal just to see Viera? No, they want to see Henry. Likewise, MLS' drawing power comes from exciting attacking players (as is the case in all sports pretty much).

 

True, MLS is behind other sports, at least including football, basketball, baseball, hockey, and maybe throw in golf, maybe some others, for drawing power in the US.

BUT, the US is huge, it has a very large population, so large that it can most certainly sustain multiple top level sports leagues. If MLS can maintain where it is now, and continue to grow slowly in the future, it could be the 5th major sport and, though it might not ever, or in the near future, rival football for support, it will have enough to live on and improve. If MLS had 1/4 the fan support per capita that the EPL has, well we'd have the same number of fans because the US is ~ 4x the population of England. So if it only takes 25% of the drawing power of the EPL to make MLS a world contender in terms of fan support (and therefore revenues etc.), well that is promising. Of course that 25% is very very far from where we are now, but who knows in 15-20 years from now?

I would also argue that soccer has drawing power for the large minority, mainly hispanic, population in the US and it could draw them away from football, basketball etc. if it presents a product on the field deemed worthy of support. Also, tons of people play soccer and like soccer in the US, maybe 20 million or more play (mostly kids). While getting these people to actually watch soccer hasn't been easy, maybe when the league grows a bit and can afford more in your face advertising it can draw these people in to watch. If soccer was on one major channel every saturday and sunday, at least one or two games (like college and pro football is on every channel), just one channel, then we might see that people are willing to watch soccer if it is in front of their face and they don't have to go out of their way to find what time and what channel it is on. If there could be an ESPN 3 which was included in basic cable packages and everyone had it, and it chose to show soccer instead of football on the weekends, I bet you'd get some channel flippers who would stop and watch.

The claim is that soccer is boring to watch for the casual observer, but I really challenge that argument for the EPL. It is non-stop action up and down the pitch with rabid fans and tough tackles and lots of offense really. I think that could draw some people away from college football (if their team isn't playing) and away from golf and tennis and the other stuff that regularly dominates the airwaves on saturday and sunday.

Finally, I think that soccer is really in a healthy place in the US right now. MLS is doing quite well for itself. Sure the average American has probably never heard of or barely heard of MLS, but there still are 15,000 people at each game on average. Hell, even 10,000 per game and we have a viable league. It won't be a league that can afford to have world superstars, but a league nonetheless. The US has a pull for players from abroad and within just because it is the US and is a great place to live and raise a family. Many MLSers are there just for that reason, not the money (or lack thereof). So even is MLS is relatively poor, I think it will be able to provide a disproportionately good quality of talent for people to watch just because it is in the US and those who play in MLS get to live in nice places with good schools and relatively safety and serenity. I personally would be fine with MLS staying where it is, as a place for the top youth to develop and for our stars to end their careers. That is enough for me to watch, it is now and I watch now. Others are apparently OK with this too as MLS has pretty good support now, more than enough to keep afloat.