IVANO: “Bobby McMahon made the quite simple point on FSWR the other night that it's not always the "product" on the field that people are passionate about. Fans can appreciate the sport on a variety of levels. I guess this is why so many folks watch something like the Little League World Series. If people were only willing to watch "good" soccer, you'd have no one in the stands, ever, in El Salvador, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia and about a hundred other countries because they'd all be at home watching Chelsea and Barcelona on satellite.”

“Good,” obviously, is in the eye of the beholder. I should point out that large parts of El Salvador and Guatemala don’t have access to the number of games American fans do and while this seem beside the point, it’s actually fairly important when talking about sports in the American marketplace.

One of the things that I think really hampers MLS is the fact that it does not compare favorably with competing entertainment. A $20 ticket to see the Fire is, candidly, a tough deal for me compared with a $10 seat to see the Bulls. Add in the fact that you can take public transport to get to the United Center while getting to the Firehouse is an enormous hassle (by public transport, it’s about an hour and a half) and the deal looks worse. Parking for both are about $15, though big games at the United Center cost a lot more.

I agree that creating a bond with fans is of paramount importance and, keeping with Chicago, it’s pretty clear that the Fire has done a good job of doing that. I live in a mixed neighborhood (Korean, Hispanic, black, hipsters, blue-collar) and I do see Fire bumper stickers frequently. The thing is, for ANY sport to survive in the USA, it has to go beyond a core audience, and the way a sport does that is my being superior entertainment. MLS lacks that talent right now, and seems unwilling to spend the money to change that.
 
The Bulls didn’t draw real well when they stunk, but fans did go to see the Lakers, the Knicks (an historic rivalry), the Mavs, et al. If the Fire stink, people don’t go because the other teams aren’t enough of a draw — the fact is, there are only about four halfway decent teams in MLS at any given time. The league only saw an attendance blip when Freddy Adu was the hot new thing, and that has vanished today. Add in that soccer fans have the ability and option to form bonds with high-quality, overseas clubs via channels like FSC, Gol and Setanta USA, and it’s easy to see why you see more Manchester United jerseys around the streets of Chicago than Fire jerseys.

Bottom line for me here is that people come to games and if they don’t like what they see, they don’t come back. MLS has really struggled to get people back because the quality of the product on the field, league-wide, is poor.

Ivano’s point is interesting and worth debating, though I’m not sure it gets me any closer to what my original intent was: Trying to find positive things to put out there about MLS that people don’t know about. The fact that there is a small, passionate core audience is well-known. What remains difficult is growing that audience beyond 15K a game.

Now, there is one thing that should be noted: 15K per game for a soccer league, looking world-wide, isn’t bad, actually. The SPL attendances are wretched unless the Glasgow teams are playing or it’s an historic rivalry. Dundee United drew just over 5K against Dunfermline last week, and that’s been pretty standard at Tannadice for the last few years. The thing is, the American sports market is a huge one. MLS wants to be a major player, and that’s great — it should be. But when compared to college ball or the NFL, MLB, NBA and NASCAR, it falls way short by any measure.

I do have an answer for this that I’d like to float: I think the NHL has been correct to try take the focus off TV ratings and point out that they sell their rinks out night after night. If MLS could do the same, I think a genuine case could be made that the sport has reached a level of consistent quality to draw the casual fan.

ALLMODCONS: “I have no problem looking at how to improve MLS, however what you consistently fail to mention in these snobby pieces is that MLS is 11 freakin' years old! You are comparing a league in its infancy to leagues over a century old. Of course the quality is better than with that much history and more importantly money under your belt. You expect too much too fast. MLS is like a child that is learning to walk. Do you give up on your child if he or she falls the first try? Of course not. You will encourage them to get up and keep trying. I don't know about you, but I am for US soccer in the long haul. I would much rather see a slowly improving league, than one that buys the best talent in the world and burns out quickly (NASL). Again, I'm not saying you should not give construction criticism to the league. This is healthy, but I get a consistent negative vibe from your articles that borders on mean spirited and is definitely snobbish. I suppose you would rather we went back to the days of the A-league. I for one am thankful that we have a league that is actually trying to succeed and put a good product out there. Your standards would dictate that about 95% of the leagues should just fold because they don't have a prayer at reaching the quality of La Liga, EPL etc.”

This is an argument that has been used quite a bit by MLS’ most passionate boosters. The league is young, give it time, etc. However, there never seems to be an answer to when this league is supposed to grow up. Is it 10 years? 20? Fifty?

Frankly, a business that fails over a ten-year period of time would have the plug pulled. Now, I’m not sure I’d be so coldly capitalist when it comes to MLS, but I do think the argument that the league “is like a child learning to walk” is full of manure. I feel that ten years is plenty of time for a league to get its feet under it. I’ve been in favour, of course, of treating the league like a “real” sport from day one — again, if they want to be a major player, then they have to benefit and suffer from the same things that all other competing leagues do in this country.

I also don’t buy the argument that MLS needs to get control of its own facilities before it can be fairly judged. Why? Well, two teams in this league have had that control almost from day one: Kansas City and New England. New England seems to be shedding its audience like a dog in summer; Kansas City has never really caught on and has been on the block since Year Two. (Having said that, I am encouraged that Overland Park may be a home for the team and it should be noted that KC’s attendance — while still unspectacular — is up a good tick over its woeful past.)

Finally, I find it peculiar that demanding a quality product is “snobbish.” Would you eat at a restaurant that serves bad food? Would you purchase a badly-written book? How about shoddy clothing? The argument that people that — correctly, by the way — who point out that European and South American soccer is often of far superior quality are somehow “anti-American soccer” is laughable. Most of these folks, like myself, see the quality overseas as something to ASPIRE to.

Denying the reality of the global soccer world is foolish, yet Americans seem to instinctively react to what most folks would consider constructive criticism with reactionary vitriol. I think this comes from the same place that the so-called American “improvements” to the game stemmed out of. Or have we forgotten the dreadful “shootout,” the clocks on the field and the flags? Do people really, truly believe that college’s sub rules make for a “better” game of soccer? Come on.

I remain astonished that when confronted with the facts that MLS is NOT spending money on the product and yet wishes to charge comparable entertainment prices, that more hard-core fans don’t vote with their feet. The general public already has, of course — that’s why the seats are full for Real Madrid and Barcelona, but not for the Columbus Crew.

Again: I don’t want to see MLS fail. But the job of the press — and the duty of the fan — is to demand a better team on the field. Without pressure, there is no success. And after eleven years, yeah, it’s high time for a lot more pressure.

I don’t think that’s “negative.” In fact, I think that’s what any self-respecting sports fan would do. 

Last word goes to letterhack John Bohland, who writes:

"I guess I am not as down on MLS as you are, but I do sometimes find it depressing when watching the Crew v Red Bull, for example. I'm a little spoiled as a DC United fan, as I think they've got it done right. They have had good success finding quality foreign players and have done so without relying on has beens or would-be retirees. I've always felt that, when it comes to foreign players, MLS would do well to mine Argentina, Central America, and the Caribbean as the main sources of import talent. Throw in a few Euros that are still hungry (young or old), and that's a decent mix. The European transfer market has gotten so out of control, however, MLS is getting priced out of the game. I doubt we could sign the Peter Nowak type player these days or even Jamie Moreno. The EPL has gotten ridiculous- players like Carrick are way over-valued.

I do hope to see the youth set ups get going soon, though those won't pay dividends for a few years. At the very least, I'd like to see kids that want to go pro stay in the region they grew up in. The more ties a player has to a team and an area, the better.

I don't agree with much that Steve and Nick say on FSC, but I do think they are right about making the regular season mean more. Cutting the playoff teams to four and offering cash for victories would be a good way to get that started. The more urgency the players have, the more competetive the matches will be. Yesterday's Watford v West Ham was not one for the football purists, but it was very entertaining- 100 miles an hour, lots of action, tackles flying in, etc. That sort of football would sell, especially if you combine it with more quality technique."