So Reading is gone and Fulham survives.

In truth, not that shocking. In fact we warned you last August that Reading's first EPL season would prove a mirage and that there would be real problems this year.

Fulham's survival should bring manager Roy Hodgson at least an OBE. If Sir Alex is a knight because he's got a ton of players up at Old Trafford, shouldn't Roy get a Queen's honor for managing to get Switzerland to the 1994 World Cup, Finland to within a step of Euro 2008 and Fulham another season in the English top flight? The man may be a genius ... at the very least he knows how to get the most out of limited resources.

Closer to home we are beginning to believe that the Chicago Fire has the potential to be an extremely good side. The reason is quite simple: Cuauhtemoc Blanco has figured out how to be effective with or without the ball.
Thursday night at DC he scored a terrific goal on national television, exactly the kind of thing that the MLS publicists have to love.

But perhaps more important, Blanco is such a midfield factor that the opposition has to concentrate on him. The result is plenty of space for Justin Mapp and John Thorrington, both of whom are showing us that they know what to do with time and room to operate.

Poor old Toronto FC. No, not the guys on the field, who actually look much, much better this year. It's those loyal TFC fans who may not seen David Beckham again this MLS season. Beckham will likely miss the May 31 match in Toronto because he'll be on England duty for matches against the USA and Trinidad & Tobago. Why Trinidad you ask? Well, it seems England wants to host a World Cup sometime in the next century (2018, to tell the truth) and Mr. Jack Warner of Tobago is a very powerful FIFA man. Sending the national team to Mr. Warner's island nation could be seen as a fairly straightforward piece of lobbying.

Toronto fans? Welll there's always that MLS All-Star game coming up this summer. You can be sure Becks will be on the MLS squad.

Rangers are three for three when it goes to penalties.

Avram Grant is one for one in the matter of Chelsea-Liverpool semifinals.

And Sir Alex Ferguson and BLEEP Advocaat, two managers who have been around the block a few times, must be wondering what fate has in store for them come finals night in their respective European competitions.

Start with Sir Alex and Manchester United. It's an open secret how badly the legendary boss at Old Trafford wants another European win. You have to believe that he would have rather faced that dysfunctional Liverpool operation in Moscow rather than Grant's steely-eyed London bunch come May 21.

Manchester United is the best team in Europe this season, but they may not walk out of Roman Abramovich's home country with the silverware. Chelsea has the type of resolve, to say nothing of its take-no-prisoners defense that gives the Red Devils problems. They've also got Didier Drogba, maybe the best big game finisher in the game, no matter how good Cristiano Ronaldo has been this season.

And don't underestimate the psychological value of last weekend's win at Stamford Bridge; Sir Alex and his assistant Carlos Queiroz can claim that they didn't get a fair shake from the officials, but Chelsea took that game over when it mattered and forced the issue home. They know they can beat Manchester United when it matters.

It is might be even harder for Zenit St. Petersburg, the club that Advocaat has transformed into Russian champions and European power. A 4-0 second leg victory over Bayern Munich in the UEFA Cup semifinal was certainly more impressive than anything Rangers and Fiorentina had to offer over their 210 minutes of scoreless football, but Rangers should have the crowd behind them in Manchester for the final and they certainly must know that they don't have to win it in 120 minutes in order to be successful.

After all, Rangers won the Scottish League Cup on penalties from Dundee United; they knocked off St. Johnstone on penalties in the Scottish Cup semifinal; and tonight they put paid to Fiorentina in the lottery used by soccer to decide games that simply have to end. That's more than simple good fortune; Walter Smith's team has thrived under pressure this season even if they fail to convince you with a sputtering attack. They have lived on a solid defense in Europe and there's no reason to change that formula on May 14.

It's a real shame that DaMarcus Beasley went down with that injury because not only would we enjoy watching an American play for a major European prize his presence would offer width and speed to a Rangers' attack that sometimes gets in its own way. Zenit, you can be sure, will take the attack to the Scots.

In pure soccer terms, both finals look well-balanced. But there is a more than a touch irony to go with the pairings:
-- we get an all-English final in Moscow while a Russian club comes to England to play for a trophy.
-- Advocaat managed Rangers, of course, so meets his former club.
-- And Chelsea just happens to be bankrolled by a Russian.

Did anyone expect the European club season to finish quite like this?

So what do we know after two first leg Champion League semifinals?
   
Well, we know that if you go right at Manchester United you can take their midfield out of the game and force even the very best players onto the defensive. It helps if you have Deco and Messi and the threat of Eto'o up front.
  
 And we know, once again, that if you match Chelsea and Liverpool in a European semifinal you will get a great deal of effort, grit, efficiency and even a touch of real class…but you won't get a DVD that you will be able to retail under the title “How to Play Brilliant, Thrilling Football.” And to think that Arsenal was once taunted as “boring.”
   
But what we don't know is who will get to Moscow. Good.
   
All four of these semifinalists belong to the elite and the fact that not one of them has been reduced to a holding action in the second leg argues for just how good they are.
   
On paper you think that Chelsea and Manchester United should start checking out the hotels in the Russian capitol. But if you live and die for Liverpool or Barcelona you figure that all it will take next week is one little away goal to completely transform the second legs.
   
Barcelona, in fact, may have come out that Nou Camp encounter today in better shape than a 0-0 scoreline suggests. It was the Catalans who carried the fight all night long and when you consider that they have a relatively meaningless league game at Deportivo this weekend they might well travel to Old Trafford in better shape than their hosts. (Barca doesn't want to toss away Spanish League points, but it will take a monumental Real Madrid collapse for them to get back into the title hunt. Let's just figure that they take eleven guys to La Coruna on Saturday and save the real artillery for next Tuesday.)
   
United, which may well live to regret that penalty disaster, has a far different task ahead: They must approach Saturday's Chelsea game with dead seriousness. Sure, their goal difference is a hedge that may well still net them EPL title no matter what happens in the match of giants, but the United faithful will not come to Old Trafford at lunch time to watch the reserves… or to accept failure.
   
Manchester United has had such a brilliant year that I continue to believe that they will get to Moscow… but that path sure would have been easier had Ronaldo not believed that the goal was 30 yards wide. Given that early let off, Barcelona made United look too ordinary for far too long and only the consistent ability of the EPL team's defenders to recover in tight spaces saved Sir Alex Ferguson and Co. from real problems.
  
 I cannot say that I particularly look forward to another Chelsea-Liverpool game. For some reason, these two manage to make their Euro encounters look like English football of the 1980's: No midfielders need apply. Liverpool should have made things safe at Anfield and would have but for Fernando Torres' inability to lift the ball against Peter Cech when he was put in clean by Steven Gerrard.
   
The fact that Gerrard largely disappeared in the second half is hardly news -- he does that for England with stark regularity. But what was worse about the second 45 on Tuesday was that Liverpool did not seem to have either the ability or the ideas necessary to build an unbeatable lead.
   
Nobody will ever write Liverpool off in Europe, least of all me. I've seen them get to finals too often when logic argued that they should not be there.
   
Still, isn't that own goal a suggestion that the worm is about to turn? Certainly it seemed like a bit of karmic payback for all the times decisions have slid the Merseysiders’ way.

That leaves Chelsea, hardly the prettiest lady at the prom, and not exactly practioners of the beautiful game. All they need to do is play it tight and smart next Wednesday.
   
If they do that, one question remains: Will there be a luxury box big enough to house Roman Abramovich’s posse in Russia?

I'm no supporter of Manchester United. I'm an admitted supporter of Brad Friedel, so much so that I've more than once suggested that Bob Bradley should get himself to Blackburn, sit down with America's premier goalkeeper and find out what it will take to get Friedel between the posts in South Africa. Whatever it costs, it's worth it.

So, it may not surprise anyone to realize that I spent a fair part of Saturday afternoon alternately admiring the work of both Manchester United and Mr. Friedel, in fact sometimes wondering if he'd actually just done what I thought he had. I'm not very interested in seeing Chelsea win the EPL, but the longer Blackburn held that lead yesterday, the greater next weekend's Stamford Bridge showdown would be.

The real surprise -- especially to me -- is that I spent the last 20 minutes of that match admiring the grit, invention and character of United. Here was a team that simply was not going to be beaten. Even with Wayne Rooney unable to impact much, there was Cristiano Ronaldo looking like the best left winger on the planet (he is), Carlos Tevez showing real hunger for the goal and veteran Paul Scholes making sure everything ticked over in midfield.
When Scholes headed that corner on for Tevez to somehow bend himself in position to nod the equalizer past Friedel this Arsenal supporter couldn't help but mumur a quiet “well done.”

Chelsea could win next weekend, but their inferior goal difference remains a  daunting obstacle. And I suppose United could struggle against Barcelona, go into a funk and somehow manage to drop something in their last two EPL games.

Don't, however, plan on that happening.

What we saw at Blackburn today was proof positive that Ferguson and assistant Carlos Queiroz have done a masterful job this season.

I'm still expecting them to conquer Europe in Moscow this May. Their gambles come off because there is a spirit in this United side that even one of Friedel's finest hours was not enough to defeat.

And, Bob ... give Brad a call, please.

Guillermo Barros Schelloto and Marcelo Gallardo are exactly what MLS has been looking for. They are thoughtful players who make the rest of their compatriots better and who also bring a wealth of experience to teams where a fair number of guys on the roster are still learning how to be professionals.

You might recall an interview Barros Schelloto had about six months ago when he admitted consternation to learn that one of his teammates had never heard of Juan Roman Riquelme, let alone understood that their Crew playmaker had been a club teammate of Argentina's midfield star. That came in the wake of Copa America when Riquelme carried Argentina to the final and managed to get noticed, apparently, even in places like Columbus.

Saturday night Barros Schelloto was a major reason why the Crew edged Chivas in a wild, 4-3 game. His performance earned him player of the week honors, but the truth is that he or Gallardo could probably take that prize any morning in practice.

Fact is, you have to go back to year one of MLS when Sunil Gulati made certain that the key imports included Carlos Valderrama and Marco Antonio Etcheverry. Later Chicago added the wiles of Peter Nowak. Arguably, those are three of the best in MLS history, and not just in terms of what they did on the field. Even though Valderrama later became something of a sideshow, his precise passes to Roy Lassiter helped define the first season of MLS in Tampa Bay. You need only a smattering of MLS history to recall that Etcheverry and Nowak helped DC United and Chicago to beat all comers.

The trick, of course, is to keep finding these kinds of players. Sure, the MLS' splashout on David Beckham is a different attempt to attract attention, but signing players like Barros Schelloto and Gallardo -- both in their 30s but hardly past their sell by dates -- might actually provide greater long term benefits. Finding stars who don't mind finishing their careers away from the European or South American limelight and will give full value for the investment is tricky, but vital.

MLS is still at the point where its covey of young Americans includes too many who try hard but don't read the game all that well. Playing alongside true artists is a path to improvement. We need more imports of quality to speed up the learning process.

Ah, the annual, bitter ritual that is the release of MLS player salary information. It makes for sobering — and deeply troubling — reading. In these columns, you can find out that David Beckham is now the highest-paid soccer player in the world, counting his endorsement deals. He’s making some $31m ($6.5m of that guaranteed from MLS), and so far has scored… well, once this season.

In unforgivable contrast, 119 players earn between $12,900 and the league “minimum” of $33,000.  This is an embarrassment for a league that is selling franchises for $40m a pop: the poverty line in the USA, for a single person under 65, is approximately $10,500. No wonder some people don’t think MLS is a pro league. with salaries like that, how could it be?

One of those poorly-paid players, by the way, would be New England’s Sainey Nyassi ($17,700). The Gambian could be the next emerging star in the league and he has impressed everyone with his performances to date. Nyassi has also scored twice and is a serious player of the month candidate. Will he get a raise? (No.)

---
More pleasant news came from Seattle last week, where sanity prevailed in picking the name of their new franchise. MLS has had a hate-hate relationship with its forbearers over the years, but naming the team the “Sounders” was the right call. It hits all the bases — the fans love it, it’s well-known and it carries history — and it’s far better than the milquetoast motley the team had put forth. “Alliance?” Please.

Confidential to Philadelphia MLS: “Fury” is not as beloved a nickname.

Point. Counterpoint (of sorts).

At the risk of completely confirming what this guy says (prudes beware: After the jump is a lotta swearing) about sportwriters only yakking about and or to other sportswriters, two things struck me as kinda funny: The first was a comment on Ives' blog by a fool complaining he was "a mouthpiece for [the Red Bulls]." This is about as accurate as calling me a mouthpiece for U.S. Soccer, and it completely missed the point to boot. The second was that, if you really read closely what Luis writes, it's pretty clear the Fire organization has made his (and many other reporters' lives) rather miserable. Why? A good question seeing as the Fire are fifth in a four-sport town. (Of course, the Red Bulls are 20th in a four-sport town, but who's asking other than Fred Wilpon?)

Ironically, both organisations "canned" their respective lightning rods this week: John Guppy got defenestrated after a ringing vote of no-confidence from the team's new owners ("agreeed to part ways" is a euphemism for "fired," in case you don't understand sports-speak) and the Red Bulls "lost" Marc De Grandpre to an undisclosed "business opportunity." Sure. Maybe both now teams will kiss and make up.

While we're on the subject of euphemism, may I direct your attention to searing critique of linguistic b.s.?

Maybe it will be different this fall when the CONCACAF Champions League kicks off, but for now the bitter taste of another CONCACAF Champions Cup failure should make MLS fans wonder when their clubs will show their true value in this regional tournament. While either Mexico's Pachuca or Costa Rica's Deportivo Saprissa will rule the region again, we're left to wonder just why MLS teams trip at this regional hurdle.

This time, certainly, we didn't come away with the sense that Pachuca or Saprissa was markedly superior to D.C. United or Houston. Indeed, had the Dynamo made something of their chances in the first leg at Houston the return in Costa Rica might not have been so one-sided. Full value to Saprissa for nailing it at home, something Houston could not accomplish.

The D.C.-Pachuca series was even more difficult to assess. Good as the Mexicans are -- and their consistency over the past 18 months has been terrific -- D.C. never quite seemed to display the urgency needed in a regional semifinal. They didn't show to full quality in the first leg on the road and were too slow to approach the challenge of fighting from a two-goal deficit in the return match. Pachuca had far too much of the ball and too much space in a match where D.C. needed to go for the jugular immediately.

(As an aside, there was very strange disconnect post-match, when coach Tom Soehn told the TV audience he believed DC had been in Pachuca’s half of the field for almost 80% of the match. That simply wasn’t true, as anyone who watched the game could have seen for himself.)

It's easy to suggest that MLS teams have been at a huge disadvantage in this event because they are meeting teams in mid-season form while just starting their own campaigns. It is also correct to observe that neither MLS team caught a break from the league, which might have thought about easing their season-opening schedule to allow a bit more breathing space for the regional qualifiers.

Those are excuses, however. MLS teams are plenty good enough to win regional honors and the excuses will be considerably lamer should the clubs fail in the new format which CONCACAF will launch. Although some of the Champions League dates may clash with important MLS end-of-season games or playoff contests, our entrants should be expected to succeed. Even MLS commissioner Don Garber admits there’s a problem, telling Soccer America that “we have to do better.” His candor is refreshing, and he’s right.

Just as the American national team has established itself as the team to beat in CONCACAF, MLS clubs have to aim for that status themselves. It's the obvious next step to be taken.

Something struck me this weekend while watching the MLS games: Why don't announcers call an own goal an “autogol” or refer to the “11-meter spot'? To my thinking, that would make as much sense as referring to the score as “1-nil;” or the speed of a player as “pace.”
Here’s the thing: I don’t understand why our American announcers insist on using British terminology to describe what we’re trying to sell as an American game. I often wonder how many American fans are turned off by this affectation. I also wonder why American English isn't good enough for so many soccer talkers.
I'm not saying we should not use terms like `byeline' for the end line. It happens to be called the byeline, just as the “end zone” describes the scoring box for American football. I will, however, suggest that Americans don't play on `pitches' even if the British do. And some terms are elegant: “cross” is one of them. “Direct ball” is not.
What's wrong with saying that the score is ``nothing to nothing'' (or even “zero-zero”)? Isn’t a nice ball that creates a scoring chance really a pass, not “service”?
We're all guilty of too trying too hard to pretend we understand the world game. Sometimes we forget that we need to be selling it to the general public, not convincing soccer nerds that we know how things sound somewhere else.
--
So what was weekend two like?
Pretty good, actually, especially the two games which bookended our MLS week.
Chicago's romp past New England was aided by a questionable ejection in the first 10 minutes and that goal feast in Texas owed something to the injury to Houston goalkeeper Pat Onstad, but both the Thursday night ESPN2 game from Toyota Park and the TeleFutura finale on Sunday were pretty good affairs.
MLS got its money's worth from a couple of key performers Thursday, Cuauthemoc Blanco the architect of much that Chicago did well and David Beckham scoring and assisting for the Galaxy in the doubleheader nightcap. Beckham and Landon Donovan formed a partnership Thursday that partially obscured the fact that the Home Depot Center residents still didn't look very good. Truth is, had San Jose taken an early chance and put the Galaxy on their heels things might have been different. The jury is still very much out on Los Angeles.
There were signs, too, that another big signing may pay dividends for both D.C. United and the league. Marcelo Gallardo only put in less than an hour for his new club, but what the Argentine contributed suggests that he could be a major addition. Like Marco Etcheverry before him, Gallardo has the vision to make guys like Fred, Jaime Moreno and Santino Quaranta work hard to get into open space. If they do, Gallardo will find them.
Happily we saw 90 minutes 79 minutes (see comments; my bad!) from Claudio Reyna in Giants Stadium, too. Looking fit and active, Reyna helped the Red Bulls to start on the right note. Even though Columbus was far from a major test, the presence Reyna and the work from Juan Pablo Angel was worth paying attention to. A healthy Reyna -- if that's not an oyxmoron -- is vital for real Red Bulls' improvement.

Congrats to Seattle's soccer fans and for MLS Seattle for listening to them. More on this later.

Some of you have asked where you can read Bill Pennington's illuminating article on college scholarships, and I'm happy to provide a link to his long, well-researched piece from about two weeks ago in the Times. Others have asked for a link to T.J. Simers' scathing look at Mr. Beckham, who unwisely blew off a major columnist in his market.

Later on this week, look for capsule previews for each MLS team, and this weekend a couple of dispatches (both here and on the front page) from opening day kickoff  in MLS.

And, who do you think the best American player abroad this year is? Could it be... Andy Dorman? St. Mirren's newest pickup is scoring goals (including a heartbreaker against my beloved Arabs) and while overshadowed by the EPL boys down south, may prove to be the best (American) pickup during the January window.

An all-English Premier League final in the Champions League is a distinct possibility this season as the power of football’s richest circuit becomes ever more noticeable.
If Liverpool can hold onto any part of their two-goal lead in Milan next week half of the quarterfinal field will be made up of teams from the EPL, a far cry from the days when the last eight usually was packed with teams from Italy and/or Spain.
Indeed, the only two one-nation finals since the advent of the Champions League format have featured AC Milan against Juventus in 2002 and Real Madrid against Valencia in 2000. Obviously, that’s not going to happen this time as none of those giants are around and only the EPL or Italy can have more than one team in the final eight.
Because there is no ``protection’’ in next week’s quarterfinal draw, teams from the same leagues can meet at the quarterfinal stage. Certainly the EPL powers would like to avoid one another no matter what the managerial bluster sound like because they all must know that the 2008 champion is most likely to be one them.
Who’s got the best chance? We’ve said Manchester United all along and the only reason to even suggest a doubt is the possibility that greed will cause the Old Trafford outfit to get it wrong in April-May.
Since the start of the 2007-8 season we’ve noted that Sir Alex Ferguson has his deepest, most talented team. There’s also little arguing that the venerable Scottish manager seems to have pushed all of the right buttons to date. What’s not so certain is that Ferguson and the fanatical Old Trafford faithful can resist the lure of a triple which remains very much on.
Assuming that Manchester United takes care of its FA Cup quarterfinal business this weekend, the Red Devils will hit April with realistic hopes of winning in Europe, taking the EPL title again and adding another FA Cup to their cupboard.
That’s where things could badly wrong because no matter how deep the squad might be there are two players who have to be on the field in every important match: Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney. Ronaldo is having a memorable year and Rooney is the striker who worries every defense for every one of the 90 minutes.
Yes, Carlos Tevez can be a factor and goals come from other spots on the field for United, but chasing a triple could mean two games per week for Ronaldo and Rooney over the last two months of the season. That’s likely asking too much of them.
Ferguson wants a second European title more than anything else. United has won the EPL so often that it might as well be their own house league and while the FA Cup may still be magic for some supporters it is the Champions League which carries the greatest prestige today.
Manchester United should make that priority Number One.
So who has the best chance to derail them?
Liverpool, for the obvious reason that the Anfield Reds cannot seem to lose in Europe even if they cannot get it right in the EPL or the English Cups.
Chelsea, because they have managed to make the transition from Jose Mourinho to Avram Grant without losing much in the way of grit and tenacity. Even better, they’ve operated under the radar in a season dominated at home by Arsenal and Man U.
Barcelona, simply because there’s just too much talent in the side to be ignored.
Or maybe Roma, which showed plenty of steel in Madrid this week and may be rather tired of being regarded as an Italian afterthought.
What about Arsenal you say? Good as the Gunners can look, the form has declined over the past two months as injuries and inexperience have thinned the ranks. Arsene Wenger will say all the right things as he plays cheerleader, but he doesn’t have enough defensive depth and midfield options to chase both the EPL and European titles in April-May.
Fenerbahce and Schalke, you assume, are along for the ride.
Inter Milan might be the one team which could make it very hard for Manchester United, but the Italian champions need to figure out a way to get past Liverpool to even enter the mix. History says Liverpool does not lose big tests in Europe, so the Champions League title does not look like going through Milan in 2008.
Manchester United should be in Moscow in May. If the gods of the UEFA draws are kind, they should be facing an EPL opponent on that final big night of the club season.

There's an interesting story today in the Guardian about the continuing fallout/reaction to the EPL's brave plan to expand abroad. As most folks already know, FIFA honcho Sepp Blatter came out strongly against the plan yesterday in comments made to BBC. Read the story after the jump carefully; there's a key line in it that I excerpt below:
 
"The manner in which the proposal was made public has put relations under strain, with Blatter offended that the Premier League had not informed him ahead of the announcement."
 
For my money, this sums just about everything one would want to know about the reaction to the EPL's plan: It's visceral, it's personal, and the debate is largely being controlled by soccer politicians.
 
Let's step back for a second and really think about this: So far, the voices that have been given air on this debate are, by and large, elected heads of organizations that have a financial stake in domestic soccer. Their power derives from their membership, which in most cases means their domestic leagues and grassroots organizers. Domestic leagues are right in some cases to fear the development of a de-facto world league, especially in an era where the Internet and satellite TV presents top-class soccer for a pittance on a daily basis.
 
But, keep in mind how different the reactions are from leagues that actually have a marketing arm to stage events? MLS' SUM arm would be delighted to stage EPL games in America for the simple reason that the proceeds from these games would help shore up a league that is still trying to find its place in the national sports landscape. In contrast, Australia — which has enjoyed rabid support for the A-League — is right to be nervous about teams from the "old country" coming over and poaching some of those dollars.
 
But, when it comes right down to it, opposing the expansion of sports leagues in this global market is a bit like trying to bail a ship out with a spoon.
 
Like it or not, technology and money have radically altered the landscape of sport in the past twenty years and the fact is that many of the gambles — be it stadium spending, development of players or transfer fees — were predicated on the idea that revenue sources would continue to emerge. (FIFA has made many of the same gambles too, betting that the World Cup will continue to be a huge global TV and sponsor draw despite the fact that the winners of the tourney have remained rather static.) The EPL has successfully placed itself in America and China, enjoys fans across Asia and South America, and has accepted players and owners from across the globe. Now, logically, it must service them.
 
This is a very different situation from the one the NFL is in: That league is trying to expand the reaches of its sport having found that American revenue streams are beginning to become maxed out. This is a missionary endeavour — there are very few American football fans among Europeans, so the NFL needs converts. In contrast, EPL teams have fans around the world and have for ages, long before the Premier League was even formed.
 
The EPL is no longer really an "English" league, or even a “British” league, as the old First Division truly was.  The EPL’s current leader employs but two "homegrown" players, after all, and most of the league employs a polyglot, cosmopolitan lineup. So, it is simply wrong-headed to argue that the overseas fans are somehow worth "less" than those who happen to live on an island off the rest of Europe. Yes, money is involved, but it's not just about cash — despite the yowling of the self-appointed "fan groups," it really is about taking some games to where their other fans are.
 
And, call me cynical, but it's been clear for decades now that what FIFA really would like is a way to skim a bit of cash off the top and be able to throw their weight around at the same time. UEFA and FIFA both feel they dodged a bullet with the settlement of the G-14 case, and now have been blindsided to discover that someone else is audacious enough to suggest that a global league might actually be a good thing.
 
But an uncomfortable truth is that FIFA, and many soccer pols around the world, are like our bosun with the spoon. FIFA has assumed that a sharp blazer and a nice title mean that its views really matter in the face of overwhelming monetary evidence that their time is fading. Blatter's current regime is predicated on the support of African and CONCACAF bloc delegates, all of which require regular injections of cash to prop up largely unsustainable leagues and efforts. That cash comes from the Europeans, Asia and from us here in the USA. Sooner or later, someone was bound to see through the "good of the game" rhetoric and realize that there is simply no reason not to take the game directly to the people paying the bills. The English were just the first ones to be smart enough to do it.
 
If you can criticize the EPL for one thing, it's in how it presented its plans to the public. Instead of maintaining a unified front, and giving the plan the air of inevitability, the EPL has allowed various clubs and coaches to say whatever they wish about the plan. This was not only poor public relations, but poor strategy. The fact is, the EPL is already a global league. It's just time for it to start acting like one.
 

About six days later, the NBA reports that it too would like to expand into Europe. Lucky them: they don't have to deal with a global regulatory body that many feel just wants to line its own pockets.

Another take on the EPL abroad, this time looking to Asia, with the startling "admission" (unsourced, mind you) that there isn't much oBLEEPlobal audience for the games. And, as always, someone is out to puncture the numbers that the EPL bandies about. My sense is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle; as with FIFA, the big numbers are likely wildly inflated; that said, a lot of people are tuning in to see these games.

(A tip of the pen to Oliver Tse of the late, lamented soccertv.com. Come back Ollie!)

Here’s how we did the math for the EPL piece being posted tonight:

First, in 2007, the Mexican national team played 12 games at nine venues in the USA. They averaged 53,207 people per game. The USA also played 12 games in 2007, drawing an average of 32,754. The USA played Mexico twice, so if we drop those two games from the USA’s total, the average attendance for the USA falls to 27,958. So: The Mexican national team effectively drew double what the USA did, in the United States, and it’s a reasonable assumption that they grossed almost twice what the USA did as well. Mexico reportedly grosses about $3m a game, and nets about $1.5-$1.9m.  

Second: We made some assumptions for EPL games in America based on past events. For a game involving one major team (Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, Tottenham, et al.) and one mid-tier team, we assumed that VIP seats would go for about $250, with the bottom ticket at $75. Your average Boston red Sox ticket is about $50, so that’s not too out of whack.
 
In a 65,000 seat stadium (and there are larger ones out there) you could have about 5000 seats at $250 ($1,250,000); 25,000 at $150 ($3,750,000), 10,000 at $100 ($1,000,000) and 25,000 at $75 ($1,875,000). That’s a gross of $7,875,000.  After taxes and costs, which vary, it’s not too hard to see a net of $5m. Giants Stadium or the Rose Bowl could gross $9.5, and net about $7m.

This does NOT include suite costs or the secondary market, which increasingly is coming under team and venue controls. In other words: tickets that were once “scalped” for $1200 a pop might go back into the game’s bottom line.

Bottom line here is that the biggest draw in U.S. soccer — Mexico games — could be easily eclipsed at the gate by one meaningful EPL game in a major venue.