Welcome to Monday morning (or afternoon for those on Euro time...). Reactions to the USA's demolition of Barbados are after the jump (or on your front page) and as always, a wrap up of the full day in Euro 2008 action goes up about 30 minutes or so after close of play.
----

Considering how many players were away on World Cup qualifying duty it wasn't a bad weekend for MLS.

Hat tricks for Luciano Emilio and Edson Buddle, a couple of very good goals from Rohan Ricketts and a strong game from Kenny Cooper up front as FC Dallas got an important win over the Chicago Fire. Matt Reis’ midweek performance, including a saved penalty, helped lead the Revs once again.

Proof some MLS teams can survive the rigors of losing key players? Maybe not.

The flip side of the Toronto FC win was a poor performance by undermanned Colorado. The Red Bull New York situation continues to spiral downhill without Juan Pablo Angel and Claudio Reyna on the field. And even Chicago, which has looked so solid this year, never seemed to get going in the heat of Dallas on Sunday.

---
As for those WCQ games, the biggest result came from Bermuda which upset Trinidad & Tobago 2-1 in their first leg match. There's absolutely no guarantee that the Bermudans can hold that lead in the return leg this week, but you can imagine how the Soca Warriors will be feeling the pressure when that kicks off. They became national heroes by reaching Germany 2006 ... an exit at this stage of the 2010 qualifying process would be a mighty blow.

Jamaica, however, discovered its former coach, Professor Rene Simoes, and also may have re-discovered how to qualify. There aren't that many new faces in Simoes' lineup and the Bahamas aren't exactly the toughest of opponents, but the Reggae Boyz look more like the 1998 team than the last two editions which failed to get to the finals.

The current resident genius may be Chile's Marcelo Bielsa, however. He doesn't have a ton of talent to choose from but the former boss of Argentina known for doing things his own way produced perhaps the best victory of the weekend when Chile defeated Bolivia, 2-0 in La Paz. No, Bolivia isn't much -- bottom of the South American group and all but dead in the water already -- but winning at La Paz, where no one wants to play 3,577 meters above sea level is an accomplishment.
--
Had a chance to catch up with FC Dallas veteran Bobby Rhine last weekend when the club passed through Foxboro and was delighted to hear that the former UConn player intends to stay in soccer management when his playing days end.

Rhine told me that he already had talked with the club about a front office career and was outspoken lauding the direction both the team and MLS are taking toward youth development and growing their product.

Rhine's career path is exactly what MLS and US Soccer needs to encourage. If there is a crucial shortage in the game -- OK, I know about needing more American players and better referees -- it may be that we have not been able to develop our own set of administrators and coaches from within the pro game.

There hasn't been much time and it is good to see former players like Jeff Agoos and Garth Lagerwey in decision-making roles. MLS, especially, could do more to encourage players like Rhine to make the transition from the field to the front office.

A few years ago I advocated creating a roster spot for a veteran "player/coach/administrative intern" who could continue to train, be available for a limited number of games and not count against the team's salary cap or roster number.

The benefit should be obvious. A player like Rhine might indeed play another season, perhaps 10-12 games, but would be able to concentrate on learning the other side of the business. FC Dallas would benefit from a veteran's presence in the locker room and have a capable replacement available should national team calls or injury create roster problems. And the player would get invaluable experience in a different role, even have the time to discover exactly what part he can play in the game's future.

There is one person Rhine already knows he’d like to see involved in MLS: His former coach, UConn’s Ray Reid. “I didn’t have any problem coming into MLS [as a rookie] because I’d already been in a professional atmosphere,” notes Rhine. “I want the Huskies to win another national title.  I then would like to see coach move into the professional game.”

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.

Part one of a two-parter off Saturday's game is up on the front page or here at da permalink. Later this week, more in the blog on the topics below. Bear with me; I'm in final edits on my book and I spent a great deal of time cleaning up after a big storm. 

A good idea. Read more here.

1) That MLS will make this the year of the product

The political climate has shifted: publicly funded stadiums are, at long last hitting a wall. Why? Well, people are sick of seeing millionaires ask the public for a hand out for the express purpose of building arenas chock full of luxury suites the average fan will never see the inside of. Canny fans know that these deals smell funny too: Many of these new stadiums seem to be more about a profitable piece of real estate than about supporting a soccer team… which was the rationale for building them in the first place!
The spin that this is just “stadium fatigue” doesn’t wash here: it’s more like stadium rejection. So, if MLS really wants to convince us that these stadiums are helping their product, they have to do something about the product on the field. They can start by increasing player salaries (which are pitiful), loosening restrictions of foreign players and start bringing in some of the very talented — and also underpaid — younger players that populate the South American leagues.
And, if MLS feels it has to have a stadium for each team, OK: Then build ’em. But let the owners do it. It can be done: Since the owners don’t spend more than $5m total for these teams in overhead a year, they can follow Lamar Hunt’s model and fund them themselves. If putting out $70-100m in one shot is too rich, then how about spending $1-3m a more year on the on-field product instead?

2) That U.S. Soccer will realize that they need a radical overhaul if they are to capitalize on the gains they have made.

There’s no question that American soccer has come a long way since 1990. But there are legitimate questions about where soccer is right now. Optimists claim the growth potential is bright, realists point to static attendances and pessimists say it’ll be gone tomorrow, just like in the 1980s.
All of these viewpoints have a lot to back them up. That’s why the U.S. Soccer Federation needs to focus on the things they do well and allow MLS to handle the rest.
The Fed — like the English FA — has to stop mucking around in the selling of the game, and focus instead on putting a quality product on the field. All those sponsorships won’t mean jack (and won’t last, either) if the men don’t start winning outside this region. Yes, the men’s team does drive American interest in the sport. But that interest is driven by games won, not ad campaigns, web sites or press releases. After all: which drives interest in foreign soccer: the FA, or the leagues?
Just go play the games. Spend the money on the youth teams, and getting quality opponents. Get some new blood into the coaching ranks (hiring Nowak is a good start) and stop playing politics. The sandbox is too small, and if enough sand is flung, soon enough it’ll be empty.
Sadly, the Fed is riven with conflicts that date back aeons. Some of these political struggles are so arcane you need a map to figure your way through them, and they are only of interest to the folks fighting them. A piece of unsolicited advice to the fighters: grow up, guys, and start thinking about the game, not your reputations. The truth is, no one in the outside world knows who you guys are anyway, so stop worrying about it.

3) That soccer will form an alliance with other leagues to ultimately control their own television channel and packaging.

Three MLS owners, Stan Kroenke, MLSE and Dave Checketts, have a problem. There’s this network, called Versus, that bought the TV rights for NHL games; the production is top-notch but the ratings are in the tank. That’s led to some in hockey circles talking quietly about forming their own network, a la the NFL net, which made big waves by getting cable operators to fork over a remarkable 70 cents a subscriber — or 50 cents a person more than the must-have CNN!
Thing is, the NHL isn’t year-round, and the sport’s biggest fans are on the coasts and in Canada. Versus also doesn’t carry every game — the regional Fox networks remain the backbone of the sport on TV. The NHL probably doesn’t have the oomph needed to carry its own network, so, they’d need a partner, ideally one that doesn’t interfere too much with their schedule and one that might hold some viewers while attracting others. See where we’re going with this?
Received wisdom has it that hockey fans don’t cross over into soccer, but take a good look at the map and you’ll see that the big hockey towns are also the towns in which pro, club and college soccer has a long tradition. So, if MLS and the NHL teamed up, they’d have a pretty solid core to launch their own network down the road. Add in that the NHL has one thing MLS clearly doesn’t (solid, professional broadcast crews with experience following a fast game) and the fact that MLS has something the NHL desperately wants (a young, ethnically diverse fan base) and you’ve got a winning combo.
If this match-up were smart and snagged the EPL rights to boot — or folded the very network that sponsors this column in as a third party — they would be nigh unbeatable. Hey, EPL games in the morning, NHL or MLS at night. Tell me that wouldn’t sell.

4) That soccer bigwigs will improve the quality of the sport’s broadcasts

One of the things that drives American soccer fans crazy is the quality of the telecasts for MLS games. I’ve received literally thousands of emails about various broadcasts and broadcasters (to be fair, this included FSC) and without naming names, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that most fans think most telecasts of American games are lacking.
Broadcasters have a tough time: finances have been tight and sometimes, well-intentioned moves have backfired. Most notoriously, fans didn’t appreciate ESPN’s attempt to bring a professional sound to their games by taking on Dave O’Brien as the lead play-by-play man. Personally, I wish fans had cut O’Brien a little more slack, and I still think ESPN had the right idea in moving to make MLS and U.S. national team game telecasts sound more like every other broadcast. In fact, I wish more moves like that one were made, but perhaps with former players and other quality announcers (which O’Brien is — he just got hired by the Boston Red Sox, which is a plum assignment in sports) to give this game the professional veneer and credibility it so desperately needs.
On the picture side of the equation, the work of producers, directors and cameramen has indeed improved but it’s still got a long way to go. Fresh blood would really help here as well: let’s hope the new league deals with FSC and ESPN drive those changes.
One last point: Honesty sells. People don’t need to be told that the game is “exciting,” especially when it isn’t. Fans also don’t need useless “sideline reporting;” this isn’t American football, after all.
People do need to be told who has the ball, what they’re doing with it, and why a team has lined up in a certain formation. Too often, that basic information is lacking. And announcers would be well-reminded that their main job is to tell viewers what they cannot see on a large field. Every broadcaster could profit by studying Premiership Live radio, which features the superb BBC commentators who are talking to people who aren’t seeing a live picture and have to understand the potential in every attack.

5) That MLS and its teams will stop faking attendance numbers.

Speaking of honesty, lying about your turnstile counts kills your credibility. So does adding in international doubleheaders into your counts and then pretending that 50,000 people really came out to the MLS match when the draw was really Mexico-Uruguay.
Some have asked if it is fair that so many people in the media are “obsessed” with MLS attendance? Yes, yes it is. Attendance and TV ratings are reliable gauges of popularity, and every sport is judged by the same standards. That’s why editors who were told that a team was drawing 16,000 a game, only to find out that only 10,000 of those seats were paid for, go ballistic and keep the sport out of the papers.
And yes it does matter that the NHL sells out many of its buildings and still has lousy TV ratings. The sellouts are real, especially in Canada, not contrived. That tells editors something, too.

6) That MLS will stay out of the hornet’s nest that is women’s professional soccer.

Fact: WUSA crashed and burned.
Fact: The most recognizable face in the women’s game is retired.
Fact: 99.9% of all Americans cannot name a single member on the current U.S. national team roster.
Fact: All women’s professional sports struggle mightily at the box office.
Fact: For all the good of Title IX, most women’s college soccer programs cannot compete at the top level.
Conclusion: Say no.

7) That MLS will cross-promote with other sports.

MLS needs to work on getting more people to the games. It’s encouraging to see MLS finally cross-promoted with other sports on ESPN; it would be nice to see that continue at the local level with tie-ins and cross-promotions to other local teams.
One example: Other minor sports give discounts to fans who try out their product if they bring a ticket stub from one of the bigger boys down the street: How about promoting MLS games at baseball games and giving half-off to fans who take them up on it? Not only would that reach general sports fans, it would reach Latino consumers to boot.

8) That college soccer will come into the 21st Century.

Change your rules, and play the international game. The product would not only be more attractive, but you’d actually be appropriately training some of those kids for a pro career instead of just using them for your own egos and devices. Enough said.

9) That soccer fans stop bickering.

Guys and gals, does anyone but you really care if you think MLS is better than the English league? Does it really matter if you prefer Spain’s league to Brazil’s? No, it doesn’t. Arguing about games is fine. Having a preference for what games you watch and how you spend your money is your right. And supporting your side through thick and thin is the life-blood of all sports passion.
But ripping your fellow fans for having somehow “lower tastes” than you is stupid. It’s just silly elitism that makes the sport’s fan base look fractured and contentious, and it keeps new people from embracing and enjoying the sport. That may keep the sport “cool” to you, but it also cools the long-term survival prospects of soccer in the States. Not cool.
This is supposed to be fun — we’re not in Rio or London, folks — so how about making this year the year in which fans respect each other and their differences?

10) That the fans will keep growing in depth and volume.

While we’re on the subject of fans, take a bow, folks. For 2006 was the first year since MLS kicked off that the voices of the fans actually got heard.
Doubt me? How about the furor over the Houston 1836? Or the blistering the U.S. team took after the World Cup? How about the cheers over the MLS All-Stars’ performance, and the disappointment with U.S. Soccer blowing their long courtship with Juergen Klinsmann?
Your voices matter. If I had one wish here, it would be that these same fans sat down and watched some broadcasts of other American sports, and read the papers and saw how other sports teams are covered. If they did, they’d quickly find out that soccer’s getting the shaft all around, and they’d yell even louder.
Demand better, fans, of everything on and off the field.
It’s your money, and you deserve it.

It is confirmed: David Beckham has signed a contract with MLS and will join the LA Galaxy. A formal announcement is forthcoming at 1:30 pm ET. The deal is said to be worth some $38m a year for five years.  AEG, adidas and MLS have formed an unusual partnership to handle and market the star in the United States. Recall that under MLS's "salary cap" rules, the league is only paying some $400K of that. Out of whack? You be the judge! Beckham himself has confirmed that he is leaving Madrid in a prepared statement to the press, and our look at what this means for the league will be up momentarily.

New column, on both, up now.

When RBNY coach Bruce Arena speaks, people react. In fact, it is rare when the provocative former national team coach doesn’t provoke a reaction because his reputation for speaking candidly is well-known.

This week, his interview with Jack Bell at nytimes.com (and his subsequent, and not all-too convincing apologies to Grant Wahl at si.com) is the hot topic of American soccer.

We disagree with Arena on many things; we think he is an egoist and a bully, and we also think his eight-year tenure as technical director will be remembered for failing to deal with some of the very problems he’s now calling out. But there are three items he raised in his Q&A with which should be front-burner stuff.

First, Arena specifically pointed out that American players are locked into a certain income bracket with little room for growth.

Second, Arena said there was a great need for more people in decision-making roles who know what a player ``looks and smells like.’’

Third, Arena pointed out that money alone does not solve problems in sports, but that improving league play is the path forward.

He’s absolutely right on all the counts and his remarks should serve as the launching pad for actual reform.

Point one is critical because the United States is a money-driven culture. As long ago as 1999 we sat with Sunil Gulati in San Diego on the eve of an American friendly match and discussed the low level of MLS salaries. Gulati correctly noted that raising salaries arbitrarily would not improve any of the players and also reminded us that there are financial restraints in any business.

Of course, Gulati was correct … as far as it went. The problem then, as now, is that promising American athletes don’t pursue soccer as a career path. Why would they when they look at what baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey, tennis offer as financial incentives. It is overwhelming difficult to reach the top level in any sport, but what 15-16 year old who has real athletic ability is going to stay with a game where starting salaries are laughable.

Like it or, when Arena talks about players pursuing graduate school rather than breathing soccer 24 hours a day he is merely telling you what you already should know. Would it make any difference if the top choice in every MLS draft got a $100,000 signing bonus? You bet it might.

Coupled with better salaries is Arena’s second point: this country simply does not have enough scouts and coaches who recognize the qualities in top players. Indeed, you can take the argument further and suggest that if soccer camps, coaching schools and scholastic/collegiate sports produced high-level players we’d already be awash in them. But that system isn’t working in basketball, either, is it? Soccer starts with a smaller pool of potential stars and it needs a different developoment system — working with “what we have” is no longer acceptable.

It is often suggested that MLS needs better players. It isn’t as often suggested that it needs general managers who actually are soccer general managers rather than marketing people, scouts who can draw on a lifetime of global soccer experience and an array of supporting people whose opinions are worth listening to.

If MLS and American soccer in general wants to get better quickly, it needs far more input from knowledgeable soccer people. Remember the “Project 2010” study commissioned from Carlos Querioz and Dan Gaspar some years ago? What file drawer is that in? Did anybody actually try to implement it?

Finally, Arena states the obvious when he says we’ve got to have a better league in order to have better players. His track record at D.C. United suggests he will turn the Red Bulls around, but until the whole league starts marching to a different drummer, one who doesn’t confuse close conference races with actual competitive quality, Arena may be a voice crying in the wilderness.

Arena’s should have been saying much of this for the past four years when he had the national team bully pulpit and the halo effect of World Cup 2002. It’s understandable why he didn’t: the coach knew the talent he had available and admitting that would have been counter-productive.

But for or all his failings, Arena doesn’t deserve a reaction — he deserves to be listened to whether you like what he says or not.

Click here.

Also, look this weekend for the delayed piece on USSF's men's coaching candidates.

1) Why is it that this coming week, Canada, Mexico, ####mp;T, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama (among others in the CONCACAF region) will play matches on the international dates while the USA remains idle? It can’t be that the Fed doesn’t want to “disturb” a season in progress— after all, Mexico’s deep into their season too and it’s not like that’s ever stopped anyone anyway. Club have to release their players, so there can’t be any argumenst from the foreign clubs, either.

This is now the third international date that U.S. Soccer has missed since Bruce Arena’s departure, and with such dates becoming scarcer and scarcer, why aren’t the men taking advantage of the opportunity to get together. Arena constantly told all of us that coming into national team camps only made players better, and new USSF president Sunil Gulati says he wants the U.S. men to be able to take on the world. If you believe Gulati, then ask: Why isn’t the USA playing?

2) Do American soccer fans know that MLS Commissioner Don Garber’s annual salary now exceeds that of all but one MLS player? Yep. According to the SportsBusiness Journal, Don Garber’s new contract — which carries him through the 2010 World Cup has a base pay of $1.3m annually, with incentives that could take him above $2m a year.

The only player in MLS whose base pay comes close to that is the salary of Juan Francisco Palencia, who has a guaranteed base of $1,360,000 at Chivas USA (Figures according to those leaked by the MLSPA to the Washington Post earlier this year) Yep, your faves Landon Donovan ($900,000), Freddy Adu ($550,000), Clint Dempsey ($86.488) and Bill Gaudette ($11,700) don’t match the main man.

3) Speaking of cash, why is MLS so hesitant to sell players when it has good offers for them? In the past year, MLS has turned down $3m for Clint Dempsey from Charlton and $5 million for Eddie Johnson from Benfica (to say nothing of a reported $2m offer from English 2nd division side West Browich Albion). Now, Johnson is earning some $875,500 this season in KC, which works out to about $55K a game to date (or $437,750 a goal — not bad if you can get it), so a change of scenery wouldn’t necessarily put more cash in his pocket.

But Dempsey, who earns just about $6600 a game (all figures are arrived at by dividing salaries by games played to date) would stand to make a sizable chunk of cash if he moved — his cut of the transfer fee alone would be about 4 times what MLS pays him in a single season! Three seasons ago, there was another guy who wanted to leave the league badly, and his game suffered as his transfer saga dragged on. That guy was DaMarcus Beasley (who, shockingly, is now unhappy at PSV Eindhoven), and the club was the Chicago Fire. The situation hurt both the player and the club.

Dempsey is in the same boat, and the fact is that MLS will lose his services after the 2007 season anyway, so why not get cash for him now while an offer is on the table? And Johnson, who hasn’t been burning up the league either, can only see his stock go down the longer he remains in Kansas City. MLS likes to pretend that its players are widely sought after, and that they are, in the words of Garber, under-appreciated stars. Unfortunately, neither of these suppositions is correct. Dempsey is a great guy, but even he’d admit that he isn’t driving ticket sales to New England home games. That isn’t his fault — there isn’t a single player in the league who does. We disagree with Arena (who reportedly earns $1.4m at RBNY, in case you’re curious) on many things, but he is correct when he says the league was better a few years back when players such as Carlos Valderrama and Marco Etcheverry were on the rosters. Those guys were genuine world stars and the lack of men like them today points up MLS’ Achilles’ heel. This is a league that must compete against leagues at home and foreign leagues and teams on TV that are stocked with stars and do have the best talent — MLS just can’t keep pace no matter how hard the guys try.

From where we sit, the first step to solving this is fairly simple: Sell the guys who are in demand. Then use the money to help attract some folks that would improve the quality of the play on the field or provide leadership and teaching to a new generation of players.

 

UPDATED: Josh Wolff's proposed move to Derby from KC fell through after Wolff failed to get a work permit from the British government. While Wolff was on the World Cup team, he did not appear in 75% of their matches over the past 2 years, which is the common work permit standard for internaitonals. Wolff also does not have an EU tie or an EU passport.

Shalrie Joseph's $1m move to Celtic from New England was also nixed, but this time by MLS, which refused to sell him. 

4) As it happens, we had lunch with Dempsey a few weeks ago and one of the things that he said he finds so frustrating about the league as it stands right now is that teams play so many meaningless games. “I’d love to be in a league where every game matters,” Dempsey told us. This has been a fan complaint for some time; when players start talking about this, however, the suits should listen up. Why? Well, how can players — especially those folks earning $11,700 a season — be expected to give their all day in and day out if they feel every game doesn’t matter?

We’d like to offer a solution. With Toronto entering the league next season, creating an unbalanced league, MLS has a fine opportunity to jettison the conference structure and go to a single-table system. The rewards of this are obvious: If you award the league title to the overall point leader at the end of the year, every game means much more than if you’re just jockeying for one of eight playoff slots. Now, we know MLS loves the playoffs (we cannot figure out why, as they have been consistent flops in terms of attendance and attention, but whatever), so we think we have to keep them. And we would: Make the MLS Cup a League Cup to be competed for at the end of the regular season.

Here’s how it could work: All teams are eligible. Give the top four teams at season’s end a two-round bye. Make the 12th place team play the 13th place team for the wild-card berth. Then, have the fifth through 12th place team (or the wild-card slot) play in a home-home knockout total goals series. Five plays 12/WC, six plays eleven and so on. That leaves four teams, who then join the top four in what is a de facto quarterfinal round. Play a home-and-home series again with No. 1 playing the lowest seed alive and so forth, and you get four teams. A home-home semifinal leads into the MLS Cup. This forms a five-week playoff series, counting the wild card. Teams get bonuses for each round they get to, and the competition forms the third major trophy in the American case, next to the US Open Cup and the new League Championship.

It seems to make sense to us — what do you fans think?

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."

Read today's Salt Lake Tribune leader. Here's the first sentence:

"A gaggle of local politicos insists that the latest scheme for a Real Salt Lake stadium in Sandy is a good deal for Salt Lake County taxpayers. We don't buy it."

Ouch. Stay tuned — this "deal" is, again, not over yet. Does this mean no more RSL if it falls through?

 
Also: comment from board poster "neophyte:"

"Jamie, I am an unapollogetic RSL fan. I even have season tickets. Right now I am feeling pretty good with the string of wins and Jeff Cunningham showing on both the scorers sheet and assist sheets.

However, your comment on Checkett's ham-fisted way of dealing with the politicians is correct. I never understood why he laid down the ultimatum for a deal. Why he isn't pursuing the angle of community benefit is something I don't understand.

Utah has more soccer players per capita than anywhere else in the US. How having a team and a "community" facility to hold tournies, state championships, expos and use for club and local league play is beyond me. Every local league in the three local counties is bursting at the seams with players and teams needing fields to play on.

This seems to me like a good starting point for negotiations---you supply the plumbing and the blacktop and we will supply the complex. This approach may sound too simplistic and maybe I'm just too simple minded but it sounds like the locals get "open space" and parks all in one.

Checketts' threats are just that--would you leave a place where the attendance is one of the highest in the league for another unproven market? Dave, you get more bees with honey--stop the ultimatums, keep winning and take a community approach instead of a all or nothing stance."

I haven't had much time to post recently but letterhack John Bohland wrote in to suggest this piece and ask when the four piece series on MLS' "positive" aspects is coming. It's a nice look by colleague Grant Wahl at the Barra Brava, so check it out.

As for the MLS series: I am having a hard time finding stuff ON the field to talk about. Off the field is easy; on... not so much. The MLS players seem very...beat down, to be honest, and the games I have seen have really been pretty awful. I've been watching (or tapng and then watching) almost every game played, and it's been, well, really tough viewing.

I went to Gillette last week and then caught the weekend game vs. the Fire side-by-side with the Santos-Vasca game on TV (what seven dishes and five TVs will do for you...) and it was revelatory. The stadium atmosphere was fine (I was actually thinking of doing a piece on how an empty stadium SHOULD be an attraction — it isn't crowded and parking is free; it's really comfortable to see a game!), but the game wasn't hot. The TV game, however, was death. Bad ref'fing, bad, bad fouls (how Jay Heaps and Joe Franchino weren't ejected is beyond me), one good goal from Andy Herron, but so many flubs.

The only thing I can compare it to was seeing the Lokomotiv game from Russia earlier in the week. As in MLS, the match was kick and chase, with no tactics to speak of, and very little athleticism. It's honestly really depressing — I want so much for it to be better, but it's difficult to honestly say that MLS is very good — this isn't high-level soccer.

There is clearly a small core following for MLS, but I am having a real difficult time figuring out why this is when high-quality games are so readily available elsewhere. I don't want to be snobbish and suggest that folks don't know what they are watching because the fact is people clearly enjoy it, and even I am not enough o####rinch to deny joy. But from a pure, global soccer point of view — well, I'm not seeing it.

I'd like to be proven wrong on this one.

Contrary to what BigSoccer and its ... er...well, you know, tell you, I do want MLS to succeed, and I would like to see some good soccer. Now, I do have a couple MLS topics that I've already penned, but I'm open to suggestions. What players do you guys think are playing well? Am I missing them? Tell me — I'll go catch a few of their games.

And, if y'all post some comments and suggestions, and I'll chat about them over the next few days.

Letterhack Christopher Wade sez it all:

"I thought you would find this article [in the Boston Globe, registration req. but free] interesting: I love how Dell'Apa points out that the Revolution and Dempsey have no control over the transfer negotiations and it all comes from MLS HQ. This stubbornness by MLS will just cause bitterness and they will end up getting nothing for Dempsey because his play will suffer because he does not care (thus lowering his value) or he will just wait out his contract.
 
"If MLS were a true business they would sell their talent when it peaks and use the proceeds to reinvest in their “product”, thus creating a wider pool of quality players. This wider pool of quality players would improve play and make it easier to sell their good players."

We agree, Christopher. One note: Dell'Apa insinuates that MLS received an offer of "$2m" for Dempsey — the offer was actually a bit higher than that, In other news, Demspey remains in the market, but a move is unlikely until January.


 

After watching today's appallingly bad New England-Chicago game, this article in the California-based Daily Breeze seemed particularly relevant. I'll write more on this as part of the promised series on MLS, but some of this stuff — especially Alexi Lalas' insouciance towards his fellow players — is hard to ####.

England, of course, opened with a #### this weekend — Manchester United looks very good while L'Arsenal struggled against l'anti-jouers pour Aston Villa. Best performance outside of the Red Devils' demolition of sad Fulham? Perhaps Bolton, which looked very solid against a wasteful Tottenham.