Several countries have long accepted the fact that their domestic leagues have more or less been springboards for their most talented players to move to Europe for the glamour, the competition, and the big paycheck. It's completely expected in countries like Argentina and Brazil, and to a lesser extent in Scandinavia and Japan, that their top stars will move on to bigger and better things in Europe. As MLS stars begin to perform better and better, it is almost certain that they will be more routinely scouted for European sides. MLS is providing a stage for them to display their talents in hopes of landing a big contract across the pond. Let's face it - MLS salaries will never be able to keep the up-and-comers here forever. If Carlos Ruiz has another stellar season for the Galaxy, you can expect him to be gone the following year with a lucrative contract somewhere in Europe. Same goes for other budding MLS stars - and I'm not just talking about the American ones, obviously. My question is this - the USA mentality is to be the biggest and the best. Will they accept the fact that just about (there are always exceptions ala Landon, for now) every big star that's groomed here in the States will shortly leave home for the grander scale of Europe? Will the US public accept our league as simply a springboard for players to move on? Or will MLS really honestly try to grow at an astounding rate and become one of the best leagues in the world? Realistically speaking, that won't happen, but it's anybody's guess.
In time the US will except being a springboard league in order for MLS to survive. Once MLS has its own stadiums and controlls all forms of revenue I believe MLS and the US will want the top stars to stay here and for it to challenge European Leagues.
ummmmm...i'm thinking that they don't have their goal as being the biggest and the best. however, should the sport do as good as football or basketball does then we damn well could have the best league in the world because well, we're the U.S. we thrive at being the best. plus... theres a lot more cash in the US the most of Europe if not all of Europe combined. since we try to be the best... i'm certain the public wouldn't like to see their stars playing somewhere else other then home. and if (huge if) the league does infact become that popular, there will be no need for them to go across the pond. obviously its not gonna happen within the next 10-20 years... but realisticlly...who says it can't happen in 50-100 years??? after all... England was the best before the start of the World Cup, now the US is ranked really closely to them according to the weird ass rankings FIFA has. As an american i'd care more for this sport to be extrememly popular rather then having the best league.... although, as i said before, if it does become that popular we probably will have the best league...or at least one of the best leagues...top 5
I don't think it's an immediate problem. As long as MLS can pay "nice" contracts to some of their young American stars (paying above the $260,000 minimum in a soft cap), many players will simply stay. As much as I believe we have a lot of young and upcoming American talent ready to blossom, I don't think we have a large amount of players ready to make the leap to Europe, at least not in scenarios where they will be willing to give up the comforts of home. I could be wrong though. If Barrett can land a gig in Europe making more money than he would in San Jose, then there are a load of other players who soon will be able to too. MLS will continue to walk a balancing act between trying to keep the majority of its players while being realistic and having to let a minority go. And if enough players stay, which I think they will, then the majority of American soccer fans will be "satisfied", though of course the Eurosnobs won't.
Americans follow numerous college conferences that can't compare to their professional equivalents. MLS needs to promote itself as America's "home conference" in the world of soccer the way ACC basketball is the be-all end-all of sports somewhere like North Carolina. Portraying MLS as a "soccer NFL" really can't work since it isn't.
I think the real question is, Can the MLS can keep this popularity after the World cup hype has settled down? Less than a year ago most American sports fans never heard of Clint Mathis or Landon Donovan. Now there's at least one picture of an MLS-bred player in sports magazines. Will America want to watch Landon Donovan play with or against players they never heard of? Or will they want watch someone like Simon Elliott score against DJ Countess?
Most of the big stars will go to europe, but not all of them. Some of them that do go will come home to finish their careers. Landon's not here because he can't go to europe, he's here because he doesn't have to go to europe. Players like Moore, Stewart, and Hejduk could all find work overseas, but they'd rather be here. We will be a springboard league for the forseeable future, but I don't think we'll ever see the kind of talent drain that was predicted before the Cup.
last night, i asked 2 co-workers if they ever heard of landon donovan...answer...no clint mathis.....no romario.....no ronaldo....no... i'm not kidding.... we've got a ways to go if you expect this to be as popular as the nfl, nba or mlb.... realistically, i think we can overtake hockey...in 15 or so years....
The U.S. is in a different boat than Argentina and Brazil. In the latter two countries, the interest in soccer is about as high as you can get, but the money is just not there, even though those two countries are relatively better off than others in the region, Argentina's financial crisis notwithstanding. In the U.S., the money is here, it's just a level of interest. I don't think we'll be like any of the top Euro leagues in the next 15 years or so. But even if you don't get interest in soccer like you do in other countries, MLS can still get decent financial resources to make this a very attractive country to play in. If the league gets it's soccer specific stadiums, the USMNT has a couple of more strong world cup runs, and the league is marketed well, MLS will be able to at least raise, if not get rid of, its salary cap. MLS, in a span of 7 seasons, has improved by leaps and bounds. That's not to say that it will continue to improve at that rate. I also think that the talent increase may be outstripping the financial resources, so I wouldn't be surprised if you see a heavy talent exodus over the next few years. My guess is Donovan and McBride are the exceptions, and most players in their position would be happy to have a nice Euro contract. So in the short and even medium turn, I don't think MLS will be the biggest and the best. But I do think it will in the distant future be even more improved, and on par with some of the second tier Euro leagues. As it is, I think "springboard" is an improvement from retirement league.
People I believe the time is closer than you think. Think about this. If the USA can medal in the 2006 World Cup (big "if") and most of the stadiums have been built in MLS I think 2006 could be the coming out year. If people realize that there is world class talent in world class facilities in their own back yard, I think they will come. The tickets are fairly cheap and a beautiful stadium would bring people in. Example: The Baltimore Orioles stink right now. But I love Camden Yards so I still go to games because it's fun. Going to a half empty RFK stadium doesn't sound as enticing for the average fan. But even if the LA Galaxy stunk, the average fan would still go to games to be at the Home Depot Center. This is the big thing however. Freddy Adu is getting media coverage as a 13 year old. I would bet that he will be in MLS within a couple of years. If he can get half of the LeBron-esque coverage, MLS could really take off. If Freddy sticks around for a couple of years partnered with a great showing in the World Cup, maybe MLS could muster up enough money to keep Freddy in America, and keep the people coming. These are big "if's" but I really believe that MLS is close.
I disagree with much of what I'm reading in this thread. No, the US will not accept MLS becoming a feeder league which is the term normally used. That said, I do not think the line on defining what makes a league a feeder league is as clear as one might think. When Jordan gave up the NBA to play baseball, or when Danny Ferry held out of his NBA contract because he didn't get enough money so he played in Italy (AC Milan I think), nobody even thought twice. What people should realize is that even after the great USMNT WC '02 success fueled by MLS players, the league didn't lose many players. Serna and Grazziani were jettisoned much like Diallo was the year before. Jordan may or may not stay in MLS, but it's not because he's "trading up" in leagues. So who did MLS lose? Joe Cannon left for less money and I haven't heard that Barrett was making more money either. I think those guys left because MLS was not a feeder league to the big leagues in Europe. Let's do a rundown on how many players MLS lost: DC United: 0 Metros: 0 (Jolley and Howard had offers but re-signed) Columbus Crew: 0 (McBride is returning) NE Revolution: 0 (Llamosa re-signed) Chicago Fire: 0 LA Galaxy: 0 Dallas Burn: 0 Colorado Rapids: 0 KC Wizards: 0 San Jose Quakes: 2 Notice a trend? MLS is doing a superb job of managing it's salary situation. That includes salary cap, keeping financial deals quiet, making the right offer at the right time, identifying the right players to bring into the league initially, and keeping their players happy. Looking at the 2 players MLS lost, neither is a superstar. In fact, neither is one of the top 2 or 3 talents on the Quakes IMHO (Donovan, Mulrooney and Ekelund). For Soccer to make the big jump in popularity in the US, it'll have to do it the same way that the NFL, NBA, Hockey and NASCAR have done it, by creating a critical mass of fans to support wider TV exposure. Only through TV exposure will MLS attract the casual US sports fan. But once that happens, I think the US is safe from becoming a feeder league. Will they lose some players every year, sure, but they'll retain most of the top stars. -Tron
If the goal for MLS is to be the North American EPL, Serie A, the Bundesliga, or La Liga, then MLS will fail. MLS is between a rock and a hard place. The hard place: The US sports marketplace. MLS must compete with MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, NASCAR, countless other pro-sports, and the NCAA. Can the American sports fan be won over? Oh yeah, but it'll take time. The Rock: The established soccer world. The European leagues have long histories, and deep pockets. If MLS is to be one of the top 3 leagues in the world, it'll need the fan base of a major sport, and the financial draw of Europe. For the immediate future, that's unachievable. MLS should set it's sights on one of the second tier European leagues. A lofty, but attainable, goal should be competing with Dutch and French leagues. Those two are essentially feeder leagues for the big boys, but have settled nicely in that niche.
I do not follow the Premier leagues closely, but how deep are these pockets. Are salaries in these leagues more comparible to the NFL or the NHL? IJust from casual observations I would guess in the NFL stars make 20 million a year and even roll players make 5 million, But in the NHL wouldn't it be more like 7 million for stars and roll players wuld be lucky to make a million? If it is like the NHL, don't most american Hockey players play in the NHL, in fact don't many European hockey players come to the NHL? I often here soccer can't compete with NFL, or NBA money, and I agree, but I have also heard that catching up with the NHL is a possibility. My question is, if NHL type money were available for american players, might it be comparible to european soccer type money anyway?
I'm sorry, but I patently disagree with this statement. Long Term, MLS has the potential to be bigger than any of these leagues. Look at all other U.S. D1 sports leagues; revenues, salaries, stadium amenities, and franchise values on the whole far eclipse their European counterparts. A decent roll player on an NFL team makes as much per year as some of the top English, Spanish, and German stars. The U.S. has a much larger population base, corporate sponsorship base, and overall, a lot more money is pumped into professional sports in this country than in the Euro leagues. If all MLS teams are operating their own venues, a decent domestic TV contract is in place, and SEM has been done away with, MLS will easily be able to compete for the same players playing for some of the Big-Time European clubs (all of this is very possible by the time WC 2010 rolls around). Look at how many players show interest in playing soccer in the U.S., just because it's the U.S. If there is even a decent amount of money on the table a lot of players will take a slight pay cut just to be able to live Stateside.
You're right. LONG term that can/should/will happen. I just think it'll be 30 years down the line. Unless the NBA and NFL finally eat themselves out of existence. This is dangerously close to being a very NASL-ish attitude. We do not have a soccer culture. Joe Public (not the Trinidadian team) in Dallas, or Chicago, or SF, or DC will not go plunk down $50 to see Beckham and a bunch of non-Americans week after week. Sure, I would, and most of the people here would....but that's not where the American Sports dollar is. As it stands, I think they'll be much more content watching up and coming American stars that are much like the kids they see playing in the local park. Their's more to identify with for the average sports fan. Eventually, yes, that'll be the case. But look at what the American sports fan sees.....it's not soccer. It's not even on their radar screens. The NBA isn't thinking....."we need to get a new guy on that Gatorade commercial to take press off of Donovan and MLS"..... Seven years is a VERY short time, it's only two World Cups away. I can't see MLS growing that fast in a stable way in that time frame. If it does grow that fast, I'm convinced that it'll fall apart much like NASL did. The conservative approach has actually been sound, although frustrating. I think we're all waiting for MLS to just explode on the sports pages.....but that's not going to happen. If we creep in to the American conscience, then the staying power will hold the league through any tough times, such as an economic downturn. I think that in 2010, MLS will have 6 more teams and possibly a salary cap twice it's current level, and an opening of the management structure. That'll lay the framework for the 20 years beyond.
This is the view I agree with, and belive me if things work out won't take 50 years as some suggested, but more like 10-20 years before Europes big clubs will have a dificult time buying the top soccer players at the expense of MLS.
I've never heard on an NFL player making 20 mil as a base salary. More like 10 mil for the best. Anyway, the EPL's pockets are very deep. But this is America people. The wealthiest country in the world. If every MLS team could average 25,000 people and have their own stadium there would be plenty of money. Look at it this way: The Blackburn Rovers of the EPL average 25,425 a game. If an MLS team could consistently bring in those numbers at an AMERICAN, soccer-only stadium. We could easily keep a world class player like Brad Friedel (who plays for Blackburn). There is so much more money in America that even if the attendence numbers were slightly lower than the EPL we could still possibly make more money.
Do you think Phoenix, Arizona has much of a hockey culture? It's not necessary for America to "get" Soccer. Do you think the majority of fans going to hockey games in places like Texas, Arizona, or Florida could tell you the difference between boarding and roughing, or explain the offside or icing rules to you? It's the Sports Entertainment Business. If a person was entertained by the experience, they will most likely come back. You're right, because they won't have to. One of the great selling points of MLS right now is value. It doesn't cost you $400 to bring a family of 4 to an MLS game like it would an NFL one. If the same utility (careful, economic term) level for fans is achieved going to an MLS game as an NFL game, than they will come. Well, I said MLS would be able to compete for the same Euro stars that the big clubs are competing for. I didn't say that the American:Foreigner ratio would mirror the NASL's in 10 years. MLS will always be American dominated, but having a few top foreign players here and there will definitely attract niche fans like Eurosnobs or other immigrants. Look at where Soccer was in this country two world cups ago, and look at where it's at now, still convinced that type of growth cannot be achieved? All the gruntwork has been done, the superstructure is in place, it just needs a little time to cultivate. I agree, conservative is the way to go. And I've said nothing to indicate I want MLS to go out there and spend a ton of money it doesn't have, this should all happen naturally as we get more control of ancilliary revenues and actually start making money off things like TV contracts and merchandising. 6 is possible, I think 4 is more likely. Rochester, Philly, Seattle, OKC.
I am an American and I look forward to the day that the best MLS talent is sought after in Europe. This will bring big money to MLS and give room in rosters for the next young hot shot to show himself. Afterall, who really remembers Stern John after all? There were a lot of people who said him leaving was bad for the league. But what has happened? Brian McBride and Jeff Cunningham have stepped up and filled the hole in Columbus. I am sure Stern John was more valuable as cash then a player. Do you think MLS is going to be raped of all good players so that they can't field 10 teams? Heck no! Europe has a ton of "feeder leagues" and pleanty of cheep prospects. Once MLS grows and can demand more $$$ for top talent, Europe is going to continue to go elsewhere. Bring on the big Euro checkbooks for the likes of Ruiz. MLS got him for a song and can make a big profit selling him across the pond. He'll be the next Stern John.
Peledre, I'll address the hockey in Phoenix thing. Hockey is unique in American sports. I don't think that any other sport in North America has the die hard allegiences that the NHL has. The NHL is just like MLS/soccer in that they have a hard time attracting the casual fan. Why do those sunbelt NHL teams have followings? Phoenix, Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Carolina, Atlanta, and Nashville are all what the NHL generally call 'non-traditional hockey markets' These cities are towns that have grown immensely in the last 20 years, with folks that have left the NorthEast. Go to ANY NHL or NFL event in Phoenix and you'll swear that you were in the other city. Also the teams in Phoenix, Miami, and Tampa are in dire financial straits. The NHL has tried the "sports entertainment" path, but have failed where hockey isn't in the local blood. Even here in DC (another transient town), where the Crapitals have been for over a quarter century, they draw just over 15k a game. United has had higher average attendances. And to look at where soccer is now, as opposed to ten years ago? Oh yes, we're many miles from those dark days. I just think the work to get to the next level is exponentially greater than what we've already achieved.
I hate that everybody treats soccer (and, other pro sports) as if they were like every other commodity in the marketplace. People will embrace soccer when they embrace a team. No one goes to NFL games to "consume a quality sports product," they go because they care if their team wins or loses. Once all the teams in MLS get lots of people who care if their team wins or loses, then MLS will have "arrived." As to whether or not they'll accept that their best players will go elsewhere, just ask any college basketball fan, or a River Plate or Boca Juniors fan. If their "second-tier" players can consistenly beat the other "second-tier" players in MLS, those who care about their teams will still come. Also, I think that having their best native players play for their country will minimize their loss, and salve their patriotic ego, tremendously.
Wasn't the last Premiership TV contract with Sky something like $1 billion for 4 years? MLS is a very very long way from having the kind of money it takes to be able to compete in the world transfer market.
Exponentially greater? You've got to be kidding. As for the NHL we've discussed their problems ad nauseam in other threads, they do not have control of their costs, they do not have lucrative national TV contracts, and for the most part interest is centered in small areas around their respective teams (no non-regional merchandising). Salaries have spun out of control, and the league is just not organized well enough to control costs like MLS is. My point was, something does need to be an exceptionally popular participation sport in an area to be a successful spectator sport. Actually the reverse is true for MLS. Participation is there, the only thing MLS needs to do now is get people to start appreciating it as a spectator sport. If they can do this, most of the rest will fall into place. Personally, I think this is insanely easier than starting an entire league from scratch. Look at just a few of the things that were needed to start up MLS: raising 250mil in startup capital for a sport that went down in flames in the early 80s, convincing 10 ownership groups to take the plunge, indentifying 10 core cities for the league to begin in, starting business relationships with corporate sponsors, locating suitable places to play, developing a pool of around 200 players to play in the league, convincing fans to come out for an unproven, untested product, and keeping the league operating for 7 years. Easier than convincing fans to come out and watch an already proven product? I think not.