why mls is better than other leagues

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by kronz21, Apr 28, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Yeah, who the fuck cares about the Champions League? Any team who cares about winning that is stupid. I mean, who wants to compete at the highest level anyway? It's not like sport is about excelling and winning.
     
  2. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well said.


    There just isn't that much of a difference in MLS AND that often happens in the EPL where the best players either start for a lower table club or get loaned out to one.
     
  3. TerpSoccerFan

    TerpSoccerFan New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Rome
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "So the best upcoming players have to play for the crappest teams with the crappest coaches. That's really going to help their development..."

    Here's more misinterpretation...

    The point was... the leagues DON'T CARE. The whole concept here is that American leagues aren't worried about what is best for the team or a player. They're worried about a league product overall.

    There's the occasional argument that if the best player in the world ends up on a terrible team and it stunts his growth that overall value is lost, but this doesn't generally happen. Outside of this, good talent will always emerge regardless of the coaches (Plenty of bad teams have good coaches on their staffs, mind you. In the world of parity, there's very few teams that are perpetually inept, meaning that 80% of the league or so is good at some point in time over a stretch of a few seasons and they all have at least adequate coaching staffs). The NFL here again (I'll add to that in a bit) they have teams that are bad, then good, then bad, it fluctuates with player movement. A player getting drafted to a bad team is not doomed, saved a few specific circumstances, to a terrible career.

    Besides that, I'm not making a value statement here. Maybe a draft isn't a good way, but it is a way that has worked by and large for all of our sports leagues here in the US.



    On the NFL comparisons front, here's more misinterpretation...

    You absolutely can compare the NFL with other leagues. Get the whole "IT HAS NO COMPETITION" out of your heads. And stop holding a grudge just because it's "football." The NFL is a (usually) brilliantly run sports league and taking cues from it isn't something to be frowned upon.

    The whole point in all my posts- despite dispute- has been that American leagues centrally control their product. I know players can leave and go elsewhere, they have other competition, etc. This has nothing to do with controlling your product from a central office. It's all about the concept of parity and the league dictating the type of product, competition, etc. that it wants. It can do this through rules, innitiatives, league structure, etc.

    You all are so hung up on outside competition, etc. You have to accept that there is the capacity for the league to say "These are the things we have, regardless of those who have left, won't come, etc. We can quantify these things that we have and we will dictate the rules of our league and our transfers such that in the end we will have balance, competition, and a product similar to (insert goal)." This has absolutely nothing to do with competition and is the exact opposite of what is done in Europe.

    In Europe the leagues are set up to perpetuate vicegrips held by 2-4 teams per league, continually deepening the divide season by season, with those teams becoming so powerful that they become the face, embodiment, and ultimately the deciding force in the league. They make money for them and the bottom half teams go into debt... And if you try to compete, you end up like Leeds. In the American system (which the MLS has been following and is working towards, mind you) it is the opposite with central control leading to the promotion of the league as a whole.



    All of this aside, eventually the MLS will move to this European model. Once they achieve profitability, youth systems, etc. They'll become like Europe. I'm not a huge fan of it, because I'm not sure soccer is big enough here to support the league when there are two super clubs that compete for the title every season. If we become like say the Dutch league, New York is Ajax, the Galaxy are PSV, and DC is Feyenoord... The other 10-15 teams won't have the support that corresponding clubs get in Holland, because the sport just doesn't have that capacity in this country.


    Add an extra point:

    Playing at the highest level is great, and we were pretty competitive this year in the CCC. I'm not going to be extremely worried over not making it to the CWC, though. Not when two of its qualifiers, Libertadores and CL are more prestigious than it is. Leave the token FIFA "excuse for a tournament"s to when we actually have a stable league.
     
  4. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This bears on one of the biggest misconceptions in these arguments.

    You cannot compare MLS' organization to the Premiership, La Liga, Serie A, or the Bundesliga. You have to compare it to the Champions League. Obviously the level of play is well below the CL: no one disputes that. But in every other aspect they are similar.

    * roughly the same teams participate every year
    * same talent level
    * same geographical area
    * round-robin competition followed by a knockout
    * many different teams have won the title

    Making statements like "with a salary cap everyone would go to another (European) league" is like saying "if Massachusetts had a salary cap everyone would go to a Texas team"
     
  5. rtung

    rtung Member

    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Yeah, so if you want to have the NFL model work in soccer, you'd have to have a UEFA-wide salary cap & revenue sharing.

    Good luck with that.
     
  6. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Alexander Hamilton could have told the Europeans that you can't share power between individual states and a confederation 200 years ago. Once the Bosman decision was made they should have folded up the individual FAs and faced reality. Instead they have the G-18 exploiting the loopholes in the system.

    And while it pains me to see DC United playing like crap, I am glad for MLS' sake that KC and Columbus are coming back.
     
  7. rtung

    rtung Member

    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago, IL, USA

    Hmm. Not sure I agree on the first point. On the second point, the NFL (and the NBA to a lesser degree; MLB to an even lesser degree) is definitely run as a single entity corporation. That's true. However, I don't know how much _fans_ really like parity so much as _owners_ like parity (in part because they can control costs with competition-limiting mechanisms like a salary cap and draft). For instance, the fastest growing sport in the US is NASCAR, and golf is also growing pretty fast, while both have highly individualistic every-man-for-himself structures.

    The system that is closest to soccer in Europe that exists in the US is actually college sports. While there is generally revenue sharing within conferences, Tulane doesn't really benefit if LSU does well, etc.

    Personally, my favorite sports are baseball, college football, and soccer; and I think I know why. I don't like to reward incompetence (which is what parity-inducing schemes like the draft and salary cap do; seeing the worst NBA teams trying to lose as many games as possible so that they can get the best shots at Durant and Oden in the draft is a joke). I _do_ like tradition, and I love it when my teams win it all on their own merits. Seeing Northwestern beat Michigan, win the Big10 and go to the Rose Bowl was all the sweeter because I started following them when they had always been bad and seemingly would never beat Michigan or win the Big10. Seeing the Cardinals win the World Series was sweet because I've been following them through good and bad and good again. Beating the Yankees is all the more satisfying because they'll always have a huge financial edge, so you're slaying a true Goliath. Can you hate the Colts, considering that that team will be dismantled within the next 5 years anyway?
    I think that die-hard sports fans are of the same mindset. While the NFL is wildly successful financially and draws in a lot of casual fans, when it comes to the depth of support, I can't think of any NBA team (and only a few NFL teams: the Packers, the Raiders, etc., who were established long before the NFL put in parity-inducing rules) who have fanbases that can match the passion of fans of major college football or basketball programs or even MLB.

    In short, the leagues with the least artificial parity-inducement mirror real life, and I find human struggles for success to be intriging. if I wanted to see something that was fake and set up, I'd go watch WWF wrestling instead.
     
  8. Pkauffma

    Pkauffma Member

    Feb 23, 2007
    HI
    What is this thread even about?
     
  9. Pkauffma

    Pkauffma Member

    Feb 23, 2007
    HI
    All I have to say is, conspiracy.......NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and not MLS

    There's something seriously corrupt about a franchise system.
     
  10. TerpSoccerFan

    TerpSoccerFan New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Rome
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well... To counter a few simple points:

    -Golf's popularity is based around one individual, while that in itself works against my argument, he is a transcendant figure, one of the all time most popular American athletes. Also, I'd point out that golf's "powers that be" have significantly changed the game over the last decade to try to allow someone to be competitive with Tiger, to create rivalries and parity. If the courses were still like they were a decade ago, Tiger would be winning by 5 strokes almost every weekend.

    -NASCAR's supposed rise is actually about... 3 years old. It's in the middle of a slump now and I'd argue that it sort of peaked.

    -If I remember correctly, all bowl money won by a conference in college football is divided evenly amongst all conference members. There isn't large parity in college football, but then again, college football isn't the fiscal success that the NFL is. The national championship game will draw 25-30 million viewers, the Super Bowl will draw 100 million.

    -NFL is number one league, model of parity, and I can agree that not all of the fans like it (I don't myself, I've never been a fan of all of this, just making an argument of what I see)... A lot do. The "any given sunday" aspect of the NFL is one of the reasons it is so popular.

    At least you do agree that the major American leagues are run top down with an interest in a "product." The MLB and NBA are to a lesser degree, yes... But look at all the changes in the NBA over the last several years with the league specifically trying to alter its game and image. In the last decade the Chicago Bulls went from best team of all time to laughing stock to one of the best up and comming teams with good young talent, in the same time the Knicks went from mediocre to NBA Final to laughing stock, the Heat were perennial playoffs, to joke, to NBA champion, etc. The list goes on and on. All but a handful of the teams oscillate (just at a slower rate than NFL franchises) between good, mediocre, bad, great, etc. The NBA's soft cap plus the draft sort of insure this. In a month, two great NBA prospects will be given out to two terrible teams. A European sees this as a bad team being rewarded, the NBA sees this as two new teams with marketable, franchise players who could instantly push them into playoff contention. Two different philosophies, my point all along. Don't know which one is better, likely a mix of the two. My dream situation would involve a draft, yet would have EPL-style segemented TV revenue awards. Such that the team who legitimately finished last got the first pick, yet there was a monetary incentive to finish 25th instead of 26th, and to finish 20th instead of 25th, etc.

    -I don't know what this was about either... I made a statement earlier, Jade kind of shot it down with some odd sense of authority, I responded and since we've aimlessly been debating whether or not you can compare the NFL with the MLS or a foreign league. I guess, don't know, don't care. It's been interesting.
     
  11. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Well, that's all well and good for a cartel, but here in the real world we have to worry about things like competing with other leagues and countries and producing better players. Over on this side of the pond, you need to be competitive in order to make money, you can't just slack off and absorb the shared revenue.

    So where is the NFL's competition? The AFL?
     
  12. TerpSoccerFan

    TerpSoccerFan New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Rome
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Time for repeat number five... the NFL's competition has little to do with my point. I'm just noting a difference in philosophies and adding to that the MLS is at this point in time more in line with the American model than the European model.

    I'm not making a value judgement, not proposing that Europe change to our model, just noting what is.

    I don't care what the EPL and such leagues do, but my points remain.


    Complete branching point, could be risky:

    The NFL has had competition mind you, and several key players (Steve Young, for example) played for the competition instead of the NFL in the 80s...

    But beyond that, even with their competition, leagues still have the power to dictate the product. If you create a good product you will get ratings, if you get ratings you will get money, if you have money you can offer higher salaries, if you can offer higher salaries you will get the best players. This is one way to streamline the "competition factor," not one I've really thought through, just putting it out there.

    All of this is far more complex than a simple If a then b, if b then c type thing, but there's my two cents. I just don't think european leagues do as much to dictate their product from a central point.
     
  13. HSEUPASSION

    HSEUPASSION New Member

    Apr 16, 2005
    Duck, NC
    Heh, the PGA Tour has promotion and relegation.
     
  14. masterklh

    masterklh New Member

    Oct 21, 2003
    Massachusetts
    Why? Because Americans Unlike europeans like to watch competitive games. We dont like to see the same 2 or 3 teams win the league every single year, year in and year out. The draft gives the worst team the best pick to improve there team. The salary cap makes it possible so teams cant spend 20x what another team spends to dominate the league. Call us crazy americans.. but we like to watch competitive games. Clearly the EPL is way better watching Chelsea, ManU and Arsenal fight for the league every year...

    Im sorry but there always has to be a salary cap. That way MLS teams 1 - 20 will be on par with every team in the world vice having a big 3 or 4. I like to watch new teams come up and do well, I dont like to watch the same 2 or 3 teams fight for the title every year.. thats not very entertaining.

    Its not going to happen here.. Get over it already. Doesnt matter what it brings to the sport, doesnt matter what it brings to the league, its not going to happen in the US. Americans as a whole dont like it. And im not talking about the majority of the 100 people on Big soccer who post.

    You know what? Thats a mighty fine point seeing how all American sports are the best in the entire world with the exception of soccer. All the sports in the US also bring in more money than any of the soccer leagues around the world so im incline to stick to "our" system. Hell man th e NFL brings in more money than all of the European soccer leagues combined, i wouldnt mind moddling ourselves off that.


    Caring about International tournaments wont amount to shit. Caring about improving the league within itself and in so doing will result in international success.

    you really do post some stupid shit.


    Ask any Englishmen whats more important, winning England or winning the Champions league and they will all tell you, winning england.

    Actually... the best players in Europe when they are young get loaned out to lower table teams so they get playing time. No amount of coaching can teach you as much as actual time on the field. so whats the difference ?

    Where is the NFL's competition? Try.. The NBA, the NHL, MLB, NCAA Football, that is far more comeptition than any league in Europe than you very much.
     
  15. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    couldn't work in europe though, for the very simple reason that there's nowhere to draft players from.

    And no, you couldn't just put academy players in a draft as the clubs would just shut their academies. What would be the point of spending £1 milion each year on training young players if you couldn't keep them.


    if the league halved the salary cap, other than go on strike, what options would the players have?

    how successful would it be if the US had the population of even a larger european country? Do you think, for arguments sake, that if the US was just California (exactly as it now) and the other states were uninhabited, do you think a 32 team NFL in California supported and watched by California's 35 million population would be as rich and successful as now?

    Do you think having a superbowl which would (pro rata) draw about 9 million viewers would produce the same cash bonanza?

    If there were 3 or 4 other leagues out there all playing american football on a roughly equal financial footing to the NFL, and they didn't have salary caps etc, the NFL would lose its best players, be overtaken and left behind. If the game's stars played in the other leagues, not the NFL, just how great is the NFL's product then?

    We've faced this in England. We used to have a salary cap here until around 1960, but the Italians started getting rich a luring players away so the rules had to change. For the next 30 years or so the system worked fine. Contrary to popular opinion, we haven't just had 3 or 4 teams who've always won since year dot. In that period Man Utd and Arsenal only won the title twice each, and Chelsea didn't even come close. Man Utd even got relegated (Chelsea got relegated 4 times). True, Liverpool won a dozen titles in that time, but although a big club, it was through excellent management rather than just outspending everyone.

    It's only been since the TV money (and the lop-sided distribution of it) kicked in after that period that things have been ballsed up.


    Leeds got into debt for two reasons.

    1) they spent money they hadn't got, assuming that success would pay for it all. It was a huge gamble.

    2) They overpaid players by ridiculous amounts. By all accounts when they signed Seth Johnson (who? exactly) he was hoping to get around £25000 a week. They offered £60000.

    Make those sort of mistakes in any business and you are heading for trouble.


    there's no particular reason it should. It might borrow bits here and there, but as it was set up as a business, with the objective of making money (unlike the football league, for example, which was set up as a sporting competition) it'll go the route it thinks will make the most money.
     
  16. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    The average premier league team makes $130 million - rising to $160 million next year. Do all of the big 4 US leagues do better?

    And as I said above, you have to give a little thought as to why US leagues are rich byond "the system". Boasting of being more lucrative than Spain is like La Liga boasting of being more lucrative than Scotland.

    do you actually have any data to back this up? I think the top euro clubs are now passing the earnings of the top NFL clubs.
     
  17. HSEUPASSION

    HSEUPASSION New Member

    Apr 16, 2005
    Duck, NC
    A lot of Americans are completely oblivious to where Louisiana is (not making this up, sadly), let alone that there's another way you can run a sports league. Cause the money wants us to be closed-minded, I mean Westinghouse (CBS with an NFL deal), Time Warner (MLB), and Good Ol' GE (NBC with an NFL deal).

    They're sitting pretty thanks to corporate welfare even though most Americans don't support publicly funding professional sports (1).

    You think that because we suck in them.


    Nope. When Liverpool won the Champions League nobody except Chelsea fans cared who won the league.

    Nope. They have every soccer league in the World plus various basketball leagues in Europe.

    Source:
    1. http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=345&org_name=NTUF
     
  18. masterklh

    masterklh New Member

    Oct 21, 2003
    Massachusetts

    The basketball leagues in Europe arent even as good as MLS. (the talent is far better dont get me wrong) but the support and money isnt there. I watch NBA Europe games all the time on NBA TV. I do have a bit of insight into that league.

    When im refering to englishmen wanting to win the English cup, it was asked of them and not at the time of the the champions cup like before the season what is more prestigious. Hell there was a thread on big soccer in the england forums about what is more prestigious and nearly 90% of all the fans of the game (no specific team) and the answer was the english cup.

    BTW

     
  19. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Of course it does. If there were several leagues just as big and rich as the NFL, they would not be able to get away with the draft and salary cap.

    How much do the Yankees spend compared to say the Florida Marlins? Why are MLB divisions often won by the same teams every year, with the same teams at the bottom every year?

    Now ask someone who supports say Celtic, Porto or Ajax. Ask a Liverpool fan if they'd give up their 'FIVE TIMES' for another five league titles.
     
  20. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    So if the NFL puts its salary cap too low, their best players can transfer to the more lucrative NBA? You're a joke. The NFL has no competition. A player can't leave the NFL to get paid more in NCAA, it's an amateur competition.
     
  21. TerpSoccerFan

    TerpSoccerFan New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Rome
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You all seem to ignore that both the NFL and NBA have had at least one major competitor in their history, one that competed with them directly in the same country, that had some of the best players, etc. They persisted with the draft and the cap and a centrally driven league.

    I really don't feel like getting into this now... Arsenal is on.

    I will still say... competition has next to 0 impact. The leagues still have the ability to dictate within whatever they have and whatever is willing to play within their rules to create the product they want. The better product will win out in the end, not who has the best players.

    And again, I'm not saying that they should do this in Europe... again, I don't give a damn what they do in Europe.

    While I'm not shouting out masterklh's hyperbole, I'm pretty sure NFL teams are more lucrative than european teams on average. The EPL does have a new, large contract, but it isn't even dispersed and you have big teams that throw themselves under the bus financially to win/be competitive, etc. Three of the big four teams in the EPL are in 500million dollar plus debt resulting from takover or Emirates stadium. In the US, the government pays for most stadiums. Liverpool was in several hundred million in debt before the takover. And Chelsea is losing 100 million dollars a year now. Other CL level teams have financial issues throughout Europe.

    And these are the teams that take up the larger chunk of the TV revenues. Just doesn't seem amazingly lucrative to me.

    But really, this has all stretched out too long, I feel one way, you guys seem to feel differently. You're likely never going to accept the NFL, it's arch enemy #1... But whatever.
     
  22. gold.field

    gold.field Member

    Jun 22, 2004
    Germany, Flensburg
    American sports leagues are definite proof that communism is the superior system and anyone who's promoting them is a pinko.

    Discuss. :D
     
  23. TerpSoccerFan

    TerpSoccerFan New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Rome
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    American sports leagues are definite proof that communism is the superior system and anyone who's promoting them is a pinko.

    Discuss. :D


    ...


    And with that... I bow out.

    Good luck.
     
  24. Schwalker

    Schwalker New Member

    Apr 15, 2007
    Gelsenkirchen/Finja
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany

    The idea that soccer in Europe is not a sport as such have never been brought up..?

    In my mind it´s really something similar to a religion so to me it looks like an argument about whether the Vatican is as profitable as other churches...In Europe it´s not an issue really.
     
  25. rtung

    rtung Member

    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago, IL, USA
    I'll add another 3 reasons for why I like the more unfettered sporting systems like college sports and MLB more than artificially jiggered systems like the NFL and NBA:

    1. You have true underdogs
    2. You have much deeper rivalries.
    3. You have distinct style differences.


    When George Mason made their run to the Final 4 last year and Boise St. broke in to the BCS this year, everybody was cheering for them, and those 2 teams captured the imagination of any American who had a pulse. I'm sure that if a League team made a run to the FA Cup Final, people in England would feel the same way. Why? Because they're true underdogs, with a budget that's just a fraction of the behemoths that they're going against, and they're beating teams with innate advantages by maximizing their fullest potential. If an 8-8 NFL team won the Super Bowl, no one would think the same way. Right-thinking people, in fact, would think it's a joke that a team that won 12 games could be crowned champions over a team that won 18 games. Why? Because both teams started out with the same financial resources, so it was only due to a lucky hot streak that a worse-managed team is crowned champions over a better-managed team.


    Also, let's compare college football with the NFL. When the Dolphins beat the Buccaneers, well, they've won one game, but they don't capture any financial advantage from that, and they actually make the Bucs better going forward, because the Bucs are now more likely to get better draft picks.

    Now compare that to Florida St.-Florida. That game isn't just another game on the schedule. That game has ramifications long after the whistle has blown. That game's about bragging rights in the state. That game's about doing better on the recruiting trail (if a coveted recruit in Florida, which probably has the richest pool of American football talent in the US, was deciding between those 2 powerhouse programs, you can bet that the winning coach will bring up the final score of that game), that game has financial ramifications as well (since people flock to winning teams more than losing teams, and the big bowl games pay out). If you're a Seminoles fan, you definitely want to beat UF, but you also damn sure don't want to lose to the hated Gators, because both programs will be affected by that game after the season's over. That's why rivalries in college football are most much more intense than those in the NFL, and why no NBA game comes close to matching the intensity of a Duke-UNC or Xavier-Cincy matchup.

    Plus, in college sports and in soccer overseas (and in some instances in MLB), all sorts of social factors come in to play, making it a much more engaging experience. Just in the western states alone, you have urban battling rural for the Apple Cup in Washington, you have liberal vs. conservative in the Civil War in Oregon, you have rich kids vs. plebians in both the Big Game in North Cal and the USC-UCLA game in South Cal, you have religious vs. secular when BYU meets Utah in Utah, and in Arizona, you just have plain ole hatred between 'Zona and ASU. I haven't even gone in to the South, where, for instance, 'Bama-Auburn isn't just a football game, it's a rivalry that extends in to all matters of life 365 days a year.

    Furthermore, you have all sorts of distinct styles of play associated with certain teams and leagues in college football, college basketball, soccer overseas, and even MLB that make the games more intriguing while the NFL is a copycat league (and is commonly known as the "No Fun League"). Why? Because, while the draft scatters talent all across the league in the NFL and NBA, in the college game and many places overseas, coaches drawn on the local talent (and in MLB, organizations can mold their young talent through their farm system). It was intriguing to watch Nebraska vs. Florida battle for the national championship in the 1996 Fiesta Bowl because the 2 teams had completely different styles. You had stoic, conservative, completely Midwestern Tom Osborne's Huskers who had been running a completely ground-driven triple option offense that relied on execution, strength, willpower, and grinding down the opposition for eons against outspoken, Southern Steve Spurrier's Gators who won by leveraging their speed, quick-strike ability and overall athleticism to score lots of points through the air in their Fun'n'Gun offense.


    I can't even tell you the style differences between various NFL teams of the past decade since they change so much and they all copy each other.
     

Share This Page