By you I mean American soccer fans and players. Why didn’t you form clubs in your towns and cities, played against other clubs from your area? After some time you could form state leagues, and after that interstate and finally a national league. Why did you wait until a group of businessmen decided that they could make money on soccer( or that they don’t mind loosing money on it) to drop teams in 10 cities? I would have zero emotional connection to a team that didn’t grow out of my community.
But....we did. It's called the United States Adult Soccer Association. My country's....er...state association is Texas State Soccer Association-South. And my local association is McAllen Amateur Soccer Association. And this format repeats itself across the US. We also have United Soccer League. Where depending how rich you are or how well organized your local non-profit soccer association is, you can get a team. From bargain basement amateur "cheap", PDL, to pricey, but not MLS pricey, USL First Division. So. We have done it and continue to support those leagues. It's just that the USA is not the same market at Europe. But. If we want a way to get some one like Cobi Jones or Adu or Youri to get paid pretty well (for US sports standards) and play in a league that least is able to compete at CONCACAF level then we need some rich guys like AEG or Hunt to fork over their millions to give us that level. I mean, I don't think there is any city or county in the US of A willing to fork over millions of tax payer money to maintain a professional soccer team without a rich, rich guy, day in and day out. Heck. But is not only us. Take Chelsea Football Club. It was bought out by Russian billionaire, Roman Abramovich. What you got in Europe is franchising of different kind. You already got clubs. But if they want to survive and get to be on a top level of UEFA, they get bought out by very, very rich guys. Chelsea is a perfect example. He bought club for £60Million and then proceeded to spend £100 million of his money to get players. Sure. Clubs like FC St. Pauli do exist. But there are good reasons why they are in Third Division and a team like Bayern in first division. So. Yes. We in the US do have a lot of soccer options. By the way, is 12 not 10 cities.
Here's a good place to learn more about the history of soccer/football in the US. It will give you a much better understanding of long history that we have with this sport. http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/ Also I think it should be required reading to most of Big Soccer. There is a lot in our history that even most US soccer fans aren't familar with.
Don't be mean with Croatians. Texas = 696,241 km² Croatia = 56,542 km² I think more like 11%... Texas = 20,851,820 (pop.) Croatia = 4,496,869 (pop.)
Yes, you have the USL. But, really professional athletics just don't work this way in the United States. Here are a few reasons why: 1)Pro Sports leagues in the U.S. operate as both a collective entity and an individual club. When Manchester United negotiates a sponsorship deal or a television contract or sells some match kits only Manchester United makes money. In the U.S. the league negotiates as a single entity for television and merchandising. So when the Tampa Bay Buccaneers sell a replica uniform, the Seattle Seahawks make money too. This sort of business relationship can not work in a market where there is unrestricted admission to the league system like in Europe. This in itself would be enough to kill the sort of unrestricted European league system. And the American business model for pro athletics is actually superior to the European one. But, here are two more reasons. 2)Athletes are not bought and sold in the U.S. Players have an individual business relationship to the club they play for that is not the same as in Europe. They are contracted professionals, not employees. An athlete's contract can be traded to another team, and they often are, but athletes talents are their own and they have the right to negotiate on their own as free agents with other clubs when their contract is expired. Athletes are not business assets of their club in the U.S. This may not seem like much, but a major feature of the club system in Europe is small clubs developing young players and then selling them for profit to larger clubs. Since in the U.S. an athlete's talents are his own this is not possible in the U.S. 3)High School and College athletics. A significant source of income for European clubs in developing young players and moving them to larger club's for profit is not possible in the U.S. due to both the reason above and this one. Players can not start playing for clubs at the age of 14 like they can in Europe due to primacy of high school athletics all over the U.S. And the existence of college athletics severely limits the potential for unlimited growth at the pro level. If you want to see programs developed over decades with the tradition and all that comes with it then college athletics is where it is at in the U.S. A couple more things. 1)Promotion and relegation have never been part of American sports culture. 2)American sports stadiums/arenas are built around acquiring revenue through corporate sources such as those really expensive sky boxes, and exclusive elite member zones, etc. not through individual working class fans. (Not necessarily a good thing in my opinion, but this is the way it works). 3)The U.S. is too large to have the European system. If pro football worked the way the FA does for soccer in England the U.S. would have like 10,000 football clubs.
Hey, the Yanks do O.K. There have been soccer leagues in the U.S. for a long time. There are problems with other sports having more of a following and the sheer size of the place, which makes national leagues difficult to run, but they didn't wait for anyone to give them a league. Tell you what, now they've got a viable national league they'll take some stopping.
To answer your first question: we do have local and regional leagues in the US. Almost every US city has a soccer league. To give you an example, here is one: San Diego County Soccer League. There are competetive divisions within that league, they participate in tournaments and so on. And if you look at the history of our national soccer cup (called the US Open Cup, which has been played since 1914) you will see that before MLS started playing in this tournament, the champions of this tournament were mostly organic club that come from small regional leagues. But when you connect things to major professional sports in the US, things get more vertical. It is hard to have something organic, yet of a national-scope and "major" at the same time in such a large country. Somewhere along the way corporate suits, television, and the pursuit of profits get in the way. That's how pro sports are in the US. They will never have that social club element like they do in other countries. And also, it's kind of unfair to criticize us for "waiting for a bunch of businessmen to form a league" because a lot of us have been involved with and supporting soccer in the US for years before MLS came along. We like having MLS because it gives us our best chance at having something "big". But that doesn't have to mean our involvment in soccer ends there. US soccer fans also watch (and play) in local/regional soccer clubs (or in ethnic clubs), support college soccer and minor league soccer teams. There are plenty of examples and ways to organically support soccer in this country. It's just hard to take that and form a big national league.
Except that pro baseball does not negotiate as a single entity league, and they don't have revenue sharing like the NFL and the NBA.
Pro soccer in Europe is not financed by tax-payers money. Most clubs are also not financed by a rich guy. They spend their own money. Most clubs aren’t living at the mercy of a rich guy. And even those who are can’t be re-located by him. There is little structural difference between Bayern and St. Pauli . They are both owned by the club members. I meant when you started.
So would you rather buy a ticket to watch your organically grown home team, hoping that your continuous support could make it “big” in the end, or an MLS franchise?
MLS actualy. Sorry to let you down and this may be yet another "knock" on the image of America in the world (then again I dont think we care that much) but life here in the States goes by pretty fast. There is just no time to start or think of anything unless it is offered to us, we prob dont know it even exists. That is why having the World Cup in 1996 was CRUCIAL for the sport in this country. Finaly we have league with a pretty regular audience and though we are not realy at the level of EPLs of the world we are doing pretty good for league that is only 10 years old.
They do certain aspects (they negotiate the rights to the playoffs and the world series). And they do have revenue sharing, just not as much. Major League Baseball did actually grow organically out of local leagues (as did the NFL) but it was such a long time ago (pre-dating the English football leagues) that it hardly matters anymore. As for MLS, I'm actually in agreement that a more local organic setup would have produced a better product. I would have preferred a setup similar to the College Basketball tournament or the Champions League where teams competed in local regional leagues, with the best teams competing in a National championship tournament. Oh well.
Clearly, it's not a question of what one "wants," as much as what one "can do." Of course it would be better if I could buy a ticket and watch FC (fill in local area here) v. Other-Guys FC, but that's not on, is it? There aren't the local quantity and quality of local clubs nor the infrastructure to grow what you're discussing in the next generation or two... and we Americans are not a patient lot. So instead, what has developed is a league-driven as opposed to club-driven vehicle (MLS) that opens franchises in geographical areas that it believes have the infrastructure and fan-base to support them. It's not ideal, perhaps, and there are notable failures (Tampa Bay, Miami, San Jose), of course. But in spite of falling short of the ideal, it's not bad for a ten year old league. That said, there is a model for a from-the-ground-up team to develop into an MLS franchise. The Rochester Rhinos, now an A-League team, are often mentioned as a team that could come into MLS under the right circumstances.
That's actually what I do. I live in Minneapolis which doesn't have MLS, and I attend a handful of MN Thunder matches (Div 2) a year--which is A LOT more grassroots than having an MLS team. I had a ball last summer watching our team make it to the semi-finals of the US Open Cup knocking off 3 MLS teams in the process, and even traveled to Kansas City with a large group for an away cup-tie. But unfortunately, the reality is our local team won't ever make it "big" (MLS) without an investor willing to spend millions of dollars. Even Rochester (which averages 10,000 fans playing in the 2nd Division) will not become a part of MLS unless a big-time investor comes forward. To answer your question though, I would rather have it both ways. I want something tied to the local community and I also want a famous national league that can keep and produce national and international talent. But in America, when sh!t gets big, it becomes a lot less grassroots and a lot more corporate..
Is that really necessary? If MLS never came along your and clubs similar to yours could have continued to grow naturally and possibly reach the level MLS is at now, no?
So you are advocating the club process for developing a team. Where as people join a sports club and it it through their dues and purchasing of tickets that players are purchased and paid. In addition that's how the team infratstructure is built and supported. But today most of the big clubs in Europe no longer really follow that model. There are exceptions for teams and leagues, but for the most part most teams are now owned by individuals and or companies. And for not being financed by goverment or at least partially they are. For example take the last Euro championships, who do you think paid for the new stadiums or renovations or the old. It was the national goverment and the cities. Another example in England when they had all the teams go to all seater stadiums, how do you think that was paid for. Part of it was funded by grants from the government. So even today, I think it would be very unlikely for a club as describe to start and grow in your description in either the US or in Europe.
You realize that a new CBA for the NFL has not been signed yet because the Giants, Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, and someone else I can't think one want out of this arrangement right? Their position is we generate the money, why should we give it to the Arizona Cardinals and New Orleans Saints.