SOCCER IN USA WILL IT SURVIVE?
Europunk3
Vote at: http://drink.to/soccer
napier
Europunk3 <euro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>
johnny
Joe Boehm
most popular participant sports in the US?
I don't think there is any question that the sport will survive. The real
question is whether the current first division league, MLS, will survive.
I think chances are very good that MLS will survive and eventually take its
place among the top sports in the US. I live in Columbus and it really
feels like The Crew has become a part of the community. The team gets
fairly decent coverage in the newspaper and on TV. Fitzgerald, McBride, and
Dougherty enjoy celebrity status. There are some very vocal detracters, but
I think the tide is turning in The Crew's favor.
I went to a Fire/Rapids game in Chicago a few weeks ago while travelling on
business. Less that 5000 people attended that game and it was a reminder to
me that the league still has a long way to go in most of its cities.
- Remember that the original business plan for MLS projected that the league
would be viable if they could average only 9000 fans per game. They've been
well over that mark every single year. The only disappointment is that the
number seems to slide a bit lower each year, no matter what they do.
- The demographic groups that tend to be attracted to soccer are growing in
numbers, and in disposable income, throughout the country.
- MLS owners are very experienced in the business of professional sports.
Three of them own NFL teams. We're not talking about a fly-by-night
operation here.
- MLS attendance is not really that far behind the NHL or NBA. MLS TV
ratings are pathetically low, but so are NHL ratings.
- MLS costs are extremely low compared to the big four professional team
sports. The MLS maximum salary is lower that the minimum salary in the
other leagues.
Recent court rulings will help MLS keep control of costs. For the league to
improve, salaries have to come up, eventually. But they should be able to
keep salaries under control until the league has a large enough audience to
support it.
- It is in FIFA's best interest that MLS succeed. Like any business, they
want to grow. MLS is a great way for their sport to grow in the biggest
untapped market.
- The trend in sports over the coming decades will be towards globalization.
Look at the world tournaments in hockey that the NHL has gotten behind.
Look at MLB trying to be more visible overseas. Look at NFL Europe.
They're all trying to compete at a global level, and soccer has a huge head
start.
- The growth in media means that MLS does not have to get acceptance on the
big three networks to survive, as was the case when the NFL, NBA, and NHL
were trying to grow. Fans can find coverage of the game through the
internet, including internet radio and eventually internet television.
The Crew recently played Hamburg SV in an exhibition match. The team's
official website ran an article about a match 20 years ago when
Kaiserslautern played in Columbus against an American Soccer League team
known as the Columbus Magic. The 1979 match was played on artificial turf
in front of 3000 fans in a minor league baseball stadium. The 2000 match
was played in front of 13000 people, in a stadium designed and built
specifically for soccer. That's progress! Maybe it's slow progress, but
the sport is moving in the right direction.
johnny <johnny30...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:8gor7d$rr6$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Oliver Tse
>Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
Even if MLS fails, Los Angeles will become home to Club Deportivo Los
Angeles, the new Mexican League franchise. Los Angeles is too lucrative a
market for the Mexican League to pass up. FIFA, The Mexican League, and
the US Soccer Federation can't afford to pass up the business opportunity
either should MLS fail.
===============
Oliver Tse
soccerTV.com
Doug Karpa-Wilson
Tse) wrote:
I take it you mean "only if"? Hard to imagine USSF sitting for Mexican
league tema in LA competing with MLS. I wonder what'd happen if the two
tried to merge, though....
Doug
--
Irmão das coisas fugidias
Não sinto gozo nem tormento
atravesso noites e dias
no vento - Cecília Mireles
reza ghaemi
in power (FIFA, ...) that seem to think it is NECESSARY for Soccer to be
popular in the US as it is in other parts of the world. It does not
matter if Soccer becomes really big in the US or not.
So the point is the (non)survival of MLS and Soccer in general in the US
will not have any impact on the world game.
Europunk3 wrote:
> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>
> Vote at: http://drink.to/soccer
--
http://misterdeath.tripod.com
Dedicated to Soccer and Hockey
Commentary, Articles, ...
Doug Karpa-Wilson
<reza....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is not a matter of caring or not. I just get irritated at some people
> in power (FIFA, ...) that seem to think it is NECESSARY for Soccer to be
> popular in the US as it is in other parts of the world. It does not
> matter if Soccer becomes really big in the US or not.
> So the point is the (non)survival of MLS and Soccer in general in the US
> will not have any impact on the world game.
>
Maybe not *no* impact, but certainly no more so than having a strong
league in India, China, Japan, Australia.
RS91
"reza ghaemi" <reza....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3930A10E...@sympatico.ca...
> It is not a matter of caring or not. I just get irritated at some people
> in power (FIFA, ...) that seem to think it is NECESSARY for Soccer to be
> popular in the US as it is in other parts of the world. It does not
> matter if Soccer becomes really big in the US or not.
> So the point is the (non)survival of MLS and Soccer in general in the US
> will not have any impact on the world game.
>
Joncee
Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
USA.
johnny
There is no "Men's World Cup."
john Rose
Joncee wrote:
>
> Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
> Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
> USA.
successful in what way? I remember half empty stadia.
John
Paul Mettewie
john Rose wrote:
Until the 1998 World Cup in France - the 1994 WC in
the USA was the most attended and most financially
successful in the history of the World Cup. The success
of the 1994 World Cup had reversed a disturbing trend
in which some of the prior cups had been attendance and
financial disappointments.
Half empty stadiums there may have been for *some* matches,
but I remember attending the Bulgaria-Greece game in
Chicago (where the Greek community is not tiny, but it is
not exactly large either and where there is only a smattering
of Bulgarian émigrés) and found the crowd to be surprisingly
large. Such a contest in South America or Mexico would
have had great difficulty matching the attendance, and even
in Europe (unless the match was in Bulgaria or Greece!) the
match would have had undoubtedly fewer spectators.
Criticize what you may in the USA - but it set a standard
for marketing in the game - a subject of which (marketing)
the Americans definitely know about.
As to the WWC - the level of attendance and money generated
in the USA in 1999 was so much greater than previous competitions
held in Norway and China that there was literally no comparison.
China had a well-attended final due to having themselves in it
and also to having, shall we say "orchestrated", the presence
of many of those fans. The rest of the games were relatively minor
affairs. The WWC in Norway was held in small stadiums and rarely
filled even those.
Outside of the USA I doubt that the competition could assume
much more than minor nationally-based success (like with China
matches in China.) I doubt that the USA WWC 99 success
will be repeated again in 2003.
Unfortunately, neither of these successes mean soccer will
flourish in the USA. I think the success of WC 94 and WWC
99 pointed out that top-level competition will always bring good
crowds when it marketing is applied (and in the case of the
women there was also the fact that the USA was actually
a contender!)
The MLS may apply marketing muscle, but I still see it having
a long ways to go before it can consider itself established as
a major sport.
- Paul
Stan collins
> Joncee wrote:
> > Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
> > Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
> > USA.
> successful in what way? I remember half empty stadia.
> John
Really? I'd suggest your memory was faulty (at least if you're talking
about USA94. If you're talking about WWC99, half empty stadia was a
marked improvement).
USA94 and WWC99 were huge financial successes, both boasting the largest
average crowd in tournament history.
Stan collins
SOCCERNUMB
>>Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in
>the
>>USA.
>
That term wasn't used. What was said was "...the most successful World Cup in
both mens and womens..."
There is a "World Cup" for Men's Soccer, and there is a World Cup for Women's
Soccer, called the "Women's World Cup". Neither term was used here, however.
murat...@my-deja.com
Paul Mettewie <neraz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Half empty stadiums there may have been for *some* matches,
> but I remember attending the Bulgaria-Greece game in
> Chicago (where the Greek community is not tiny, but it is
> not exactly large either and where there is only a smattering
> of Bulgarian émigrés) and found the crowd to be surprisingly
> large. Such a contest in South America or Mexico would
> have had great difficulty matching the attendance, and even
> in Europe (unless the match was in Bulgaria or Greece!) the
> match would have had undoubtedly fewer spectators.
That's also because the US is perhaps the best place in the world to
stage a "popular world sport" since the population is made up from
current or past immigrants from other nations, not mentioning its also
popularity as a vacation destination..
> Criticize what you may in the USA - but it set a standard
> for marketing in the game - a subject of which (marketing)
> the Americans definitely know about.
That's what America is all about, it's totally an American thing..
>
> As to the WWC - the level of attendance and money generated
> in the USA in 1999 was so much greater than previous competitions
> held in Norway and China that there was literally no comparison.
> China had a well-attended final due to having themselves in it
> and also to having, shall we say "orchestrated", the presence
> of many of those fans. The rest of the games were relatively minor
> affairs. The WWC in Norway was held in small stadiums and rarely
> filled even those.
>
> Outside of the USA I doubt that the competition could assume
> much more than minor nationally-based success (like with China
> matches in China.) I doubt that the USA WWC 99 success
> will be repeated again in 2003.
I was pretty surprised to see pub crowds tuned into womens world cup in
a place like las vegas...
>
> Unfortunately, neither of these successes mean soccer will
> flourish in the USA. I think the success of WC 94 and WWC
> 99 pointed out that top-level competition will always bring good
> crowds when it marketing is applied (and in the case of the
> women there was also the fact that the USA was actually
> a contender!)
It can also be debated that soccer is more popular among women in the
states and used to be more of a women's sport in the early 90's.
>
> The MLS may apply marketing muscle, but I still see it having
> a long ways to go before it can consider itself established as
> a major sport.
They could make anything popular with the right marketing. The problem
is getting enough sponsors and funds. And that's like chicken and egg.
Give it time.
Murat
>
> - Paul
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
johnny
>>>Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
>>>Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in
>>the
>>>USA.
>>
>>There is no "Men's World Cup."
>
>
>That term wasn't used. What was said was "...the most successful World Cup in
>both mens and womens..."
>
>There is a "World Cup" for Men's Soccer, and there is a World Cup for Women's
There is a "World Cup" for Soccer. I know of no rule banning women from the
"World Cup."
mema...@my-deja.com
I believe the following:
Soccer is not now, nor will it ever be a popular enough sport in the
United States to support a professional league worthy of serious
consideration. At best, there is enough money and support to field five
quality teams. (LA, NYC, DC, Chicago/Columbus, & San Antonio?) The best
thing that could happen is for the Mexican league to annex franchises in
these cities. Having said that, the participation base in the US is
such that quality players will emerge. USSF needs to do a better job
working to place these players on teams in Europe and South America. It
is imperative that this occur so that they get quality competition to
support the development of the US National Team. MLS can't develop
players when players of the caliber of Hartman made only $24,000 as the
stating keeper for LA Galaxy. You'd be better of managing a QuickieMart
financially.
johnny
>In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
>> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>>
>
>I believe the following:
>
>Soccer is not now, nor will it ever be a popular enough sport in the
Ever is a long time.
>United States to support a professional league worthy of serious
>consideration. At best, there is enough money and support to field five
>quality teams. (LA, NYC, DC, Chicago/Columbus, & San Antonio?) The best
Rubbish. Dallas, Denver, and San Jose are already doing decently. You could
probably put two clubs in LA and NY. Houston and Philadelphia could do well.
And let's not forget about Rochester.
>thing that could happen is for the Mexican league to annex franchises in
>these cities. Having said that, the participation base in the US is
>such that quality players will emerge. USSF needs to do a better job
>working to place these players on teams in Europe and South America. It
>is imperative that this occur so that they get quality competition to
>support the development of the US National Team. MLS can't develop
>players when players of the caliber of Hartman made only $24,000 as the
>stating keeper for LA Galaxy. You'd be better of managing a QuickieMart
>financially.
>
What's he making now? A good year at QuickieMart doesn't put you in six
figures the next.
mema...@my-deja.com
In nations with first class leagues there just aren't as many sports
competing for the "dollar" of spectators or advertisers which would put
it on TV. Even when this nation was more a country of immigrants than
it is now soccer couldn't compete with gridiron football. Look at the
payroll of any MLS team and it may be comparable with an english second
division squad. Sure DC United was competitive with V. de Gama for a
year or two but the MLS wants parity and with parity you'll never have
really great teams. I'm not saying that the US can't have exceptional
players. Neither am I sating that the national team can't be a
legitimate competitoe for the World Cup in the next twenty five years.
I'm just saying that you can't have a top class league (English Premier,
Bundesliga, etc. in the US). The number of top american players would
at most fill the ranks of five teams. I live near Philadelphia. I
can't see MLS making a go there AT ALL.
Bonebunny1
>
>probably put two clubs in LA and NY. Houston and Philadelphia could do well.
>
>And let's not forget about Rochester.
Let's not forget about Portland. They would have some of the best support as
anywhere in the U.S. (Also St. Louis as well).
Stan collins
> Soccer is not now, nor will it ever be a popular enough sport in the
> United States to support a professional league worthy of serious
> consideration.
Normally, this is where I'd counsel folks to stop reading.
>Having said that, the participation base in the US is
>such that quality players will emerge. USSF needs to do a better job
>working to place these players on teams in Europe and South America.
This is a self-defeating catch-22. You'll *always* have problems
launching players into the best leagues in the world if you don't have a
domestic league that is at least closely behind them. You might get a
Weah out there once or twice a generation, but the odds of being able to
build a team that way are slight. It's the reason we haven't had
players who were successful in Europe. We have a *much* better shot to
make this launch with this new generation of kids (Convey, Trembly,
Beasley, Albright, etc) who were brought into MLS at a young age than we
would if it didn't exist.
> In nations with first class leagues there just aren't as many sports
> competing for the "dollar" of spectators or advertisers which would put
> it on TV.
Doesn't matter. The United States has roughly the same amount of
disposable income as the rest of Europe combined. And I'd suggest
Europe is able to field many more than five leagues 'worthy of serious
consideration.'
> Even when this nation was more a country of immigrants than
> it is now soccer couldn't compete with gridiron football.
It won't really have to. If you take a hard look at the numbers, NHL
hockey doesn't really compete with NFL football, but is still a huge
league financially.
> Look at the payroll of any MLS team and it may be comparable with an english second
> division squad.
More like the first division, when you consider all the bonuses
involved. And I'd argue we have potential to get more bang for the buck
than any European league, due to taxation, cost of living, etc issues.
>I live near Philadelphia. I
> can't see MLS making a go there AT ALL.
We'll consider that a gentleman's wager.
Stan collins
Doug Karpa-Wilson
> In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
> > Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
> >
>
> I believe the following:
>
> Soccer is not now, nor will it ever be a popular enough sport in the
> United States to support a professional league worthy of serious
> consideration. At best, there is enough money and support to field five
> quality teams. (LA, NYC, DC, Chicago/Columbus, & San Antonio?) The best
> thing that could happen is for the Mexican league to annex franchises in
> these cities.
Of course, soccer in the US (MLS) doesn't exist to be "worthy of serious
consideration" from some elitist european oriented type. It is here to
provide interest and entertainment to the US fan. Frankly, some part of
me doesn't really care how bad the Revs are. Run by the mexican league
indeed. Next you'll be suggesting that the Portuguese sides except
Benfica, Sporting and Porto join La Liga and the rest disband. Might work
in Scotland, barely, but is pretty much heresy else where. Maybe
Marseilles and Monaco can join the Serie A and PSG go to the Bundesliga?
Doug Karpa-Wilson
> I don't think you got my point.
>
> In nations with first class leagues there just aren't as many sports
> competing for the "dollar" of spectators or advertisers which would put
> it on TV. Even when this nation was more a country of immigrants than
> it is now soccer couldn't compete with gridiron football. Look at the
> payroll of any MLS team and it may be comparable with an english second
> division squad. Sure DC United was competitive with V. de Gama for a
> year or two but the MLS wants parity and with parity you'll never have
> really great teams. I'm not saying that the US can't have exceptional
> players. Neither am I sating that the national team can't be a
> legitimate competitoe for the World Cup in the next twenty five years.
> I'm just saying that you can't have a top class league (English Premier,
> Bundesliga, etc. in the US). The number of top american players would
> at most fill the ranks of five teams. I live near Philadelphia. I
> can't see MLS making a go there AT ALL.
Well, it's a good point that MLS won't be anything but a third biggest
league in the US at best for sometime to come, but keep in mind that the
US has a population (and GNP) nearly 9 times that of England and around 6
times that of Italy. I don't think that MLS needs to beat NFL football to
be competitive on the world stage. Not at La Liga, or Serie A standards,
but then who is? A league of the caliber of France or Holland or even
Portugal would be quite fine, really!
mema...@my-deja.com
entertaining soccer for spectators at the game, I think that several
smaller regional leagues are the ticket. If you want to develop
american players and have them face the highest level of competition
you'll need to send them to Europe or South America. I think the US
needs to pattern its soccer program on countries like the Czech
Republic, Republic of Ireland, or Nigeria. You can't argue that players
in these countries have a big time league backing them up, yet, They
have significant success on the national level. Yes, the US might have
more disposable $$ than Europe as a whole, but you're really competing
for air time. Although there are more and more channels, there are only
24 hours in a day. And I, who am the biggest american born soccer fan I
know personally, am not about to pay the ESPN premium to watch the level
of play in the MLS.
Dustin Christmann
john Rose <jr...@cadence.com> wrote:
>
>
>Joncee wrote:
>>
>> Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
>> Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
>> USA.
>
Your memory is faulty, at least when it comes to USA '94.
--
Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 4-7-1, 13 points
Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 5/27, 3-2 loss at DC United
= Champions = Next: 6/3, vs. Tampa Bay
==========================================================================
Scott Hendrick
There were no "half-empty stadia" anywhere.
Scott Hendrick
============================
Please remove the spam-filter (PreventJunk) in my e-mail address
and domain when contacting me by e-mail...
============================
Dustin Christmann <dus...@nortel.ca> wrote in message
news:8h3mkj$oks$1...@nrchh45.us.nortel.com...
M. Helmet
Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkar...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dkarpawi-270...@dial-124-23.dial.indiana.edu...
>
>
> I take it you mean "only if"? Hard to imagine USSF sitting
> for Mexican league tema in LA competing with MLS. I
> wonder what'd happen if the two tried to merge, though....
>
The NBA, NHL and MLB have teams both in the US and Canada, so why
couldn't MLS and the Mexican league merge? I think it would be a great
idea. But would the FAs in the US and Mexico let it happen? Or what
about FIFA?
--
Magnus
--------
Ultimate Champions League
http://champ-league.8m.com
M. Helmet
Paul Mettewie <neraz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3932A66B...@mediaone.net...
>
> As to the WWC - the level of attendance and money generated
> in the USA in 1999 was so much greater than previous competitions
> held in Norway and China that there was literally no comparison.
> China had a well-attended final due to having themselves in it
> and also to having, shall we say "orchestrated", the presence
> of many of those fans. The rest of the games were relatively minor
> affairs. The WWC in Norway was held in small stadiums and rarely
> filled even those.
Norway never hosted the WWC, but Sweden did. But you are right about
the Norwegian stadiums - they are pretty small compared to the
stadiums used in the WWC in the US.
David A. Litterer
>
> Joncee wrote:
> >
> > Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
> > Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
> > USA.
>
> successful in what way? I remember half empty stadia.
No, most of the games were sellouts. The remainder generally only had a
few thousand empty seats, with the most empty seats being approx. 12,000
for the June 22 1994 game at Detroit and 11,500 for the June 21 game at
Dallas.
Overall, the games averaged over 67,000 per game, well ahead of the
crowds at France'98, although the 1998 Cup was the first in history to
be an almost complete sellout (averaging approx. 44,000 per game)
Dave Litterer
USA Soccer History Archives
http://www.soccerspot.com/soccerhistory
David A. Litterer
> > Unfortunately, neither of these successes mean soccer will
> > flourish in the USA. I think the success of WC 94 and WWC
> > 99 pointed out that top-level competition will always bring good
> > crowds when it marketing is applied (and in the case of the
> > women there was also the fact that the USA was actually
> > a contender!)
>
> It can also be debated that soccer is more popular among women in the
> states and used to be more of a women's sport in the early 90's.
>
A substantial number of the fans in the US are women, and the growth in
youth and amateur participation among women is currently much more
prounced among women.
A major challemnge will be getting USSF Officials to stop being divided
into camps supporting the national teams, the professional leagues and
the amateur/youth programs. This rivalry (and until recently the lack
of professionalism among administrators) has been a major stumbling
block to growth for decades, in fact ever since the founding of USSF in
1913. Only in the past decade have they been starting to pull
themselves out of this situation.
> >
> > The MLS may apply marketing muscle, but I still see it having
> > a long ways to go before it can consider itself established as
> > a major sport.
>
> They could make anything popular with the right marketing. The problem
> is getting enough sponsors and funds. And that's like chicken and egg.
> Give it time.
>
> Murat
>
> >
> > - Paul
> >
> >
>
Doug Karpa-Wilson
> A major challemnge will be getting USSF Officials to stop being divided
> into camps supporting the national teams, the professional leagues and
> the amateur/youth programs. This rivalry (and until recently the lack
> of professionalism among administrators) has been a major stumbling
> block to growth for decades, in fact ever since the founding of USSF in
> 1913. Only in the past decade have they been starting to pull
> themselves out of this situation.
>
Of course, you'll have to convince the prima donnas of the women's team
and WUSA to not try to stab every one else in the back every chance they
get. I forsee a situation where there are fans of the men's side and fans
of the women's side, but not many of both.
johnny
>It all sepends on what your goal is. If you want to provide
>entertaining soccer for spectators at the game, I think that several
>smaller regional leagues are the ticket. If you want to develop
>american players and have them face the highest level of competition
>you'll need to send them to Europe or South America. I think the US
The evidence doesn't support this. Many of the best performers on the US side
are MLS players. The US team is probably the best it has been in 60 years
largely due to the MLS.
>needs to pattern its soccer program on countries like the Czech
>Republic, Republic of Ireland, or Nigeria. You can't argue that players
>in these countries have a big time league backing them up, yet, They
>have significant success on the national level. Yes, the US might have
>more disposable $$ than Europe as a whole, but you're really competing
>for air time. Although there are more and more channels, there are only
>24 hours in a day. And I, who am the biggest american born soccer fan I
>know personally, am not about to pay the ESPN premium to watch the level
>of play in the MLS.
>
>
johnny
>In article <8h1991$sfi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mema...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I don't think you got my point.
>>
>> In nations with first class leagues there just aren't as many sports
>> competing for the "dollar" of spectators or advertisers which would put
>> it on TV. Even when this nation was more a country of immigrants than
>> it is now soccer couldn't compete with gridiron football. Look at the
>> payroll of any MLS team and it may be comparable with an english second
>> division squad. Sure DC United was competitive with V. de Gama for a
>> year or two but the MLS wants parity and with parity you'll never have
>> really great teams. I'm not saying that the US can't have exceptional
>> players. Neither am I sating that the national team can't be a
>> legitimate competitoe for the World Cup in the next twenty five years.
>> I'm just saying that you can't have a top class league (English Premier,
>> Bundesliga, etc. in the US). The number of top american players would
>> at most fill the ranks of five teams. I live near Philadelphia. I
>> can't see MLS making a go there AT ALL.
>
>
>Well, it's a good point that MLS won't be anything but a third biggest
>league in the US at best for sometime to come, but keep in mind that the
>US has a population (and GNP) nearly 9 times that of England and around 6
>times that of Italy. I don't think that MLS needs to beat NFL football to
Actually, the population of the USA is only about 5.5 times England and less
than 5 times Italy, but it's a good point.
>be competitive on the world stage. Not at La Liga, or Serie A standards,
>but then who is? A league of the caliber of France or Holland or even
>Portugal would be quite fine, really!
>
Huw Morris
> The NBA, NHL and MLB have teams both in the US and Canada, so why
> couldn't MLS and the Mexican league merge? I think it would be a great
> idea. But would the FAs in the US and Mexico let it happen? Or what
> about FIFA?
What's in it for the Mexicans?
Huw
pis...@hotmail.com
you canot import a sport as a food. the sport must have some roots in
culture or habits.
the soccer is a tipical european sport as cricket in india, baseball in cuba
and states, as hockey in canada,
if you wants to take a full sport sistem in order to gain money you can but
it's just necessary some champion (maradona, schillaci, romario, ecc.) and
some good trainer (milutinovic) some good sponsorship and a great
distribuition of this product by tv, radio, public events.
the 1994 world championship was a first try to do this, the victory of the
womens US team, was another try
the immigration of some italian player (massaro, schillaci) was one more.
but those are player that are at the end of ther carieer and they play in US
because they need money.
for me a good technical step could be in way to organise more matches
against south american teams
that play very well. but this will bless US proud spirit?
f.
Philip Lennox Beineke
Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
else it'll go largely towards local teams.
By fostering US-based soccer teams now, the Mexican League could assure
itself a piece of a very big pie in the future. Unfortunately, merging
the Mexican League into the US sounds like a political impossibility
(wasn't NAFTA supposed to solve these problems? ;-).
At present, the two leagues are in direct competition for the Spanish
language viewer. My impression is that MLS has gained a lot of ground in
spite of its poor quality and shortage of Mexican-American players, but
this kind of competition seems unlikely to help either league in the long
run.
Phil
--
Phil Beineke
bei...@stat.stanford.edu
When the messenger is being shot at, read the message.
Huw Morris
>
> In article <39361D8D...@rl.ac.uk>,
> Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >What's in it for the Mexicans?
>
> Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
> more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
> the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
> else it'll go largely towards local teams.
More likely, the Americans would gradually take it over completely. Do
you think Canadians are happy with the way the NHL is going?
Just look forward to the day when Necaxa are moved to San Diego because
it's more profitable...
Huw
Shawn T Pickrell
: Of course, you'll have to convince the prima donnas of the women's team
: and WUSA to not try to stab every one else in the back every chance they
: get. I forsee a situation where there are fans of the men's side and fans
: of the women's side, but not many of both.
yes.
a loss or two would be good for the women's soccer team.
it'd get rid of the fairweather fans and bring the prima donnas down a
notch or two.
i hate to say that about my own country ...
--
stp
Pat Huber
> Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkar...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:dkarpawi-270...@dial-124-23.dial.indiana.edu...
> >
> >
> > I take it you mean "only if"? Hard to imagine USSF sitting
> > for Mexican league tema in LA competing with MLS. I
> > wonder what'd happen if the two tried to merge, though....
> >
>
> The NBA, NHL and MLB have teams both in the US and Canada, so why
> couldn't MLS and the Mexican league merge? I think it would be a great
> idea. But would the FAs in the US and Mexico let it happen? Or what
> about FIFA?
(1)FIFA would (sadly) oppose a North American "super league" for the same
reasons (whatever they are) that it opposes a European one.
(2)I can't imagine the USSF and Mexican Futbol Assn coming to an
agreement on things like playing dates (the seasons currently overlap
for only four months, March-->June) or reffing.
(3)Differences in league structure. The Mexican League looks more
like a traditional setup, while the MLS resembles McDonald's
franchising.
If soccer is going to make it here, we're going to have to do it
ourselves. The steady stream of kids I see playing year-round,
frequently under European or Latino coaches, will make a bigger
difference in the success of US Soccer than any tinkering with
the MLS might. -pat
Pat Huber
> Joncee wrote:
> >
> > Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
> > Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
> > USA.
>
> successful in what way? I remember half empty stadia.
> John
Highest attendance, highest AVERAGE attendance....
mema...@my-deja.com
competition is good if not great. But, I'd still attribute the
(relatively) recent improvement in the U.S. Team more to the
greater number of players who've competed in Europe like Winalda,
Harkes, Keller, Reyna etc. than to MLS. Besides, my critique is not one
of whether MLS should succeed. I fervently hope it can. I just don't
think the economic reality is there to support it over the long run.
And, I don't think its collapse would be a tragic blow to U.S. Soccer.
Even more fervently, I hope it is not replaced by a Division 1 league
under the auspices of the cartel that controls A-League, PDL etc.
Joe Boehm
appealing to advertisers who sponsor mexican league games on TV.
Philip Lennox Beineke <bei...@rgmiller.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:8h78o9$i...@rgmiller.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <39361D8D...@rl.ac.uk>,
> Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >What's in it for the Mexicans?
>
> Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
> more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
> the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
> else it'll go largely towards local teams.
>
RPP
Karpa-Wilson) wrote:
>In article <8h1991$sfi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mema...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I don't think you got my point.
>>
>> In nations with first class leagues there just aren't as many sports
>> competing for the "dollar" of spectators or advertisers which would put
>> it on TV. Even when this nation was more a country of immigrants than
>> it is now soccer couldn't compete with gridiron football. Look at the
>> payroll of any MLS team and it may be comparable with an english second
>> division squad. Sure DC United was competitive with V. de Gama for a
>> year or two but the MLS wants parity and with parity you'll never have
>> really great teams. I'm not saying that the US can't have exceptional
>> players. Neither am I sating that the national team can't be a
>> legitimate competitoe for the World Cup in the next twenty five years.
>> I'm just saying that you can't have a top class league (English Premier,
>> Bundesliga, etc. in the US). The number of top american players would
>> at most fill the ranks of five teams. I live near Philadelphia. I
>> can't see MLS making a go there AT ALL.
>
>
>Well, it's a good point that MLS won't be anything but a third biggest
>league in the US at best for sometime to come, but keep in mind that the
>US has a population (and GNP) nearly 9 times that of England and around 6
>times that of Italy. I don't think that MLS needs to beat NFL football to
>be competitive on the world stage. Not at La Liga, or Serie A standards,
>but then who is? A league of the caliber of France or Holland or even
>Portugal would be quite fine, really!
>
>Doug
Will never happen. MLS will top at a level of Hungarian league. Dutch
and French?:) You wish.
RPP
wrote:
>Philip Lennox Beineke wrote:
>>
>> In article <39361D8D...@rl.ac.uk>,
>> Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >What's in it for the Mexicans?
>>
>> Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
>> more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
>> the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
>> else it'll go largely towards local teams.
>
>More likely, the Americans would gradually take it over completely. Do
>you think Canadians are happy with the way the NHL is going?
>
>Just look forward to the day when Necaxa are moved to San Diego because
>it's more profitable...
>
>Huw
I can see it noe. The league and sport ruined totally for the sakes of
the american "fan". Rules changed around, the sport sold out for
marketing dollars. Tradition? Yanks have no traditions, their stupid
country is younger than furniture in Europe. What traditions do they
grasp? Necaxa in San Diego? Why not, its economics, right?
RPP
Lennox Beineke) wrote:
>In article <39361D8D...@rl.ac.uk>,
>Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>What's in it for the Mexicans?
>
>Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
>more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
>the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
>else it'll go largely towards local teams.
>
>By fostering US-based soccer teams now, the Mexican League could assure
>itself a piece of a very big pie in the future. Unfortunately, merging
>the Mexican League into the US sounds like a political impossibility
>(wasn't NAFTA supposed to solve these problems? ;-).
>
>At present, the two leagues are in direct competition for the Spanish
>language viewer. My impression is that MLS has gained a lot of ground in
>spite of its poor quality and shortage of Mexican-American players, but
>this kind of competition seems unlikely to help either league in the long
First of all, this is rubbish. Second of all its crazy.
Fifa and Mexican FA wouldnt allow it. Footy isnt hockey or baseball,
you doint see leagues that include many nations. And Champions league
doesnt count, its a tournament.
Finally, any association with the American sporting atmosphere would
ruin the Mexican league. Americans arent real fans. They want to have
a fa,mily outing in their vans, go eat some hot dogs and watch a
"show". Americans have no idea how to support a team.
Eoin Adams
wrote:
I think domestic football would be a bit different from the WC in the
US, in the sense that a lot of the attendance was made up of ethnic
minorities (Irish, Germans, Mexicans etc.) supporting their mother
countries
Doug Karpa-Wilson
Well, we'll be miles ahead of the Polish league, anyway. I think you
underestimate the potential of money and population to be a factor.
Never's a long time, you know.
Doug
Doug Karpa-Wilson
>
> Tradition? Yanks have no traditions, their stupid
> country is younger than furniture in Europe.
Of course, association football is even younger than that. I wonder how
many commonly held European traditions are more than a couple hundred
years old. Seriously, not as Lech-bait, I think it'd be interesting to
see. I'm sure that many folks would be pretty lost if they were plopped
down in their own country in the end of the seventeenth century (I say
this as I listen to some awesome 13th century Galician music. My wife
teaches a course that involves some discussion of medieval Portugal, which
seems as different from modern portugal in many attitudes, etc. as the US
is, perhaps more so.) I think one thing that is interesting about not
having traditions more than four or five hundred years is that the old
stuff is retained. Travelling in England left me surprised how few
buildings were left from the eighteenth century and early compared to New
England. I guess having to be careful with what history you have and
*lots* of space will do that for you.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled lech-baiting.... ;-)
doug
Tim
"The U.S. men's national soccer team will play South Africa in the U.S. Cup
opener today at RFK Stadium. It is a significant match for the Americans, who
never have played South Africa and always want to do well in this
tournament....."
"Although RFK has become a popular stop for the USSF the past eight years,
organizers are disappointed about unusually slow ticket sales for today's
game. Approximately 11,000 had been sold by yesterday afternoon - far fewer at
this late stage than for most previous U.S. team visits. Last summer a crowd
of 40,119 watched the Americans upset two-time world champion Argentina, 1-0,
and since 1991, the U.S. team's 10 games at RFK have averaged 31,192."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54970-2000Jun2.html
Greycat Sharpclaw
<magh...@yahoo.com.SPAMFILTER> wrote:
>
>Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkar...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:dkarpawi-270...@dial-124-23.dial.indiana.edu...
>>
>>
>> I take it you mean "only if"? Hard to imagine USSF sitting
>> for Mexican league tema in LA competing with MLS. I
>> wonder what'd happen if the two tried to merge, though....
>>
>
>The NBA, NHL and MLB have teams both in the US and Canada, so why
>couldn't MLS and the Mexican league merge? I think it would be a great
>idea. But would the FAs in the US and Mexico let it happen? Or what
>about FIFA?
Another big problem is the "single entity" nature of MLS versus the
more traditional nature of the Mexican league. To merge the leagues
would require one of them completely reorganizes it's finances.
This is just one of many reasons a merger is most inlikely.
-- Greycat Sharpclaw
I can't be called for handballs,
I don't have hands, only front paws
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
Jamie Hill
Joe Boehm <boe...@netwalk.com> wrote in message
news:3930...@news.netwalk.net...
> Aren't there over 130 professional soccer teams in the US? Is it one of
the
> most popular participant sports in the US?
>
Participant - yes. TV - no. Fan following - no
> I don't think there is any question that the sport will survive. The real
> question is whether the current first division league, MLS, will survive.
>
Agree.
> I think chances are very good that MLS will survive and eventually take
its
> place among the top sports in the US. I live in Columbus and it really
> feels like The Crew has become a part of the community. The team gets
> fairly decent coverage in the newspaper and on TV. Fitzgerald, McBride,
and
> Dougherty enjoy celebrity status. There are some very vocal detracters,
but
> I think the tide is turning in The Crew's favor.
>
The crew was the first team to build a soccer-only stadium. They were an
average team last year but had the highest attendances by far.
> I went to a Fire/Rapids game in Chicago a few weeks ago while travelling
on
> business. Less that 5000 people attended that game and it was a reminder
to
> me that the league still has a long way to go in most of its cities.
>
> - Remember that the original business plan for MLS projected that the
league
> would be viable if they could average only 9000 fans per game. They've
been
> well over that mark every single year. The only disappointment is that
the
> number seems to slide a bit lower each year, no matter what they do.
>
> - The demographic groups that tend to be attracted to soccer are growing
in
> numbers, and in disposable income, throughout the country.
>
> - MLS owners are very experienced in the business of professional sports.
> Three of them own NFL teams. We're not talking about a fly-by-night
> operation here.
>
And very inexperienced in soccer. Doug Logan was an idiot (although he
wasn't an owner).
> - MLS attendance is not really that far behind the NHL or NBA. MLS TV
> ratings are pathetically low, but so are NHL ratings.
The problem is that with basketball and american football the scoring is
high so kids growing up have no patience in sports and can't appreciate a
good, exciting 0-0 draw.
>
> - MLS costs are extremely low compared to the big four professional team
> sports. The MLS maximum salary is lower that the minimum salary in the
> other leagues.
> Recent court rulings will help MLS keep control of costs. For the league
to
> improve, salaries have to come up, eventually. But they should be able to
> keep salaries under control until the league has a large enough audience
to
> support it.
>
> - It is in FIFA's best interest that MLS succeed. Like any business, they
> want to grow. MLS is a great way for their sport to grow in the biggest
> untapped market.
>
USA could become a big revenue area if interest can grow, which will be a
tough task.
> - The trend in sports over the coming decades will be towards
globalization.
> Look at the world tournaments in hockey that the NHL has gotten behind.
> Look at MLB trying to be more visible overseas. Look at NFL Europe.
> They're all trying to compete at a global level, and soccer has a huge
head
> start.
>
Unfortunately most Americans are too ignorant too care. Most couldn't name
one club from anywhere outside the US.
> - The growth in media means that MLS does not have to get acceptance on
the
> big three networks to survive, as was the case when the NFL, NBA, and NHL
> were trying to grow. Fans can find coverage of the game through the
> internet, including internet radio and eventually internet television.
>
> The Crew recently played Hamburg SV in an exhibition match. The team's
> official website ran an article about a match 20 years ago when
> Kaiserslautern played in Columbus against an American Soccer League team
> known as the Columbus Magic. The 1979 match was played on artificial turf
> in front of 3000 fans in a minor league baseball stadium. The 2000 match
> was played in front of 13000 people, in a stadium designed and built
> specifically for soccer. That's progress! Maybe it's slow progress, but
> the sport is moving in the right direction.
>
Thank god we got rid of Doug Logan... Now it's possible to make progress.
Jamie Hill
>
>
> johnny <johnny30...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:8gor7d$rr6$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <8goqas$olc$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "napier"
> <xterr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Europunk3 <euro...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> > >> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
> > >>
> > >who cares?
> > >
> > >
> > I do and I'm sure many others.
>
>
Doug Karpa-Wilson
US. Soccer has only been seriously trying to put itself on the map for
five or six years in the US, and the fact that it's grown it all in
maturity and remained stable in attendance is pretty amazing really.
Imagine trying to make Lacrosse one of the major sports in the US. If in
five year's tie one were to make soccer on par with basketball, or even
hockey, it'd be pretty amazing. I remember when MLS was announced to be
profitable with attendances of 9,000 some were sceptical it could be
done.
Perhaps with US soccer it is like the elephant dancing: not that it's done
well, but that it's done at all.
Doug
MC
> >>
> >> In article <39361D8D...@rl.ac.uk>,
> >> Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >What's in it for the Mexicans?
> >>
> >> Boatloads of money and exposure down the road. Mexican-Americans have lots
> >> more disposable income than young Mexicans; as their families take root in
> >> the US, either that money will go towards US sports other than soccer, or
> >> else it'll go largely towards local teams.
> >
> >you think Canadians are happy with the way the NHL is going?
> >
> >Just look forward to the day when Necaxa are moved to San Diego because
> >it's more profitable...
> >
> >Huw
>
> I can see it noe. The league and sport ruined totally for the sakes of
> the american "fan". Rules changed around, the sport sold out for
> marketing dollars. Tradition? Yanks have no traditions, their stupid
> country is younger than furniture in Europe. What traditions do they
> grasp? Necaxa in San Diego? Why not, its economics, right?
ROFL!
Barry Hamill
> But, I'd still attribute the
> (relatively) recent improvement in the U.S. Team more to the
> greater number of players who've competed in Europe like Winalda,
> Harkes, Keller, Reyna etc. than to MLS.
The first, early-90's improvement came from players who went overseas,
or came from overseas in the first place, a la Dooley. What improvement
we're seeing now is, I think, due more to MLS-based players improving-
for instance, in yesterday's starting lineup, Carlos Llamosa, Jeff
Agoos, Chris Armas, Eddie Lewis (yes, I know he's spent a few weeks
England now), Cobi Jones, and Brian McBride. If the US team is to do
anything internationally, the stars will probably be overseas-based, and
the complimentary players and depth from MLS.
--
yrs. etc.
Barry Hamill
dabig...@uswest.net
It's one of those days when I don't like myself
But I get along with me OK.
- "Wind Chill Factor Minus Zero" Bob Geldof
Zlata
Yes. yes it will, but not in the way most Americans around here seem to hope
it will, or in the way that elitist Europeans seem to imagine it will.
The answer for keeping soccer's popularity in America will not come
necessarily through MLS, but a women's pro league.
Think about it - the women's team is two time world cup champs, olympic
champs, and has a slew of players to chose from. I think that a women's
league would actually do better, and probably be the best league in the
world, if there were to be sort of a WMLS. People were really skeptical about
the WNBA at its inception, but, the best players from around the world have
come to play there, and people want to watch the game. Girls want to go buy
jerseys of their favorite players. The WNBA demonstrated that there is money
to be made in women's professional sports. I think the same sort of thing
could very well be accomplished in soccer. Obviously it's going to start out
small, but most leagues do. This season, the WNBA has expanded. People in the
US obviously want to see women play basketball at a professional level. I
think the same sort of thing would work for soccer.
I don't think it's fair to say that because MLS is bad, a women's league here
would be bad. It's like saying that because the Premier League is good, that
a women's league in England would also be good - tell me how have the English
women done in international competition lately? The best female players are
here (the teams in the NCAA are better than many pro teams in Europe), so why
not give them a league? For those who say that no one would want to see a
game - recall the attendances at the women's world cup (also see WNBA example
above). Here in the states is also where the biggest audience for women's
soccer would be. For every sexist jerk that says "no one wants to see a bunch
of girls play" there are hundreds of kids who would LOVE to see Mia and
company play in a professional league. And these kids, who have grown up
loving soccer, are going to be taking their kids to soccer games - in other
words, this would work in the long term. More and more women and girls are
interested in sports, and more and more are playing, so why not try to take
advantage of this market?
Not to say that it isn't worth it to try to make MLS better. (I would suggest
PAY THE PLAYERS MORE). But let's face it, I don't see MLS getting players out
of the Serie A in my lifetime. It would be a more reasonable goal to try to
get MLS on a level with the "second-tier" leagues, like say, the ones in
Eastern Europe, who can be competitive with mid-table teams from the top-tier
(Italy, Spain, England, France) but aren't going to be winning the champions'
league any time soon. Once MLS is at that level, and earning that kind of
respect, then go from there. (PAY MORE, SO THE BEST PLAYERS WILL ACTUALLY
WANT TO PLAY HERE).
So, basically - yes the game will survive and continue to flourish. I think
the US can support a women's pro league. And a good league is all about the
Benjamin's so it's time for MLS to raise that salary cap and for God's sake
ditch using shoot outs to settle routine league matches. And finally, a
league that is fun to watch is made up of talented players and intelligent,
creative coaches, not of stupid rule changes which insult the intelligence of
the viewing audience.
Zlata
> Vote at: http://drink.to/soccer
Dustin Christmann
>In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
>> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>>
>
>Yes. yes it will, but not in the way most Americans around here seem to hope
>it will, or in the way that elitist Europeans seem to imagine it will.
>
>The answer for keeping soccer's popularity in America will not come
>necessarily through MLS, but a women's pro league.
You just made me spit Diet Coke onto my workstation's monitor. One of these
days, I'll learn not to eat/drink and read Usenet at the same time.
Before we get underway, let me just state for the record: I'm not a women's
soccer fan. That is, I don't generally watch it. I don't have anything
against those who do watch it, who prefer to watch it, or whatever. It's
just not my bag, baby. To each his own and all that.
>Think about it - the women's team is two time world cup champs, olympic
>champs, and has a slew of players to chose from. I think that a women's
>league would actually do better, and probably be the best league in the
>world, if there were to be sort of a WMLS.
True story: WUSA, the proposed women's league that will be starting in 2001
and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
around 14,000.
>People were really skeptical about
>the WNBA at its inception, but, the best players from around the world have
>come to play there, and people want to watch the game. Girls want to go buy
>jerseys of their favorite players. The WNBA demonstrated that there is money
>to be made in women's professional sports.
I'm not familiar with any money being made with the WNBA. In fact, the
NBA's Charlotte Hornets and LA Lakers, who currently run their WNBA counter-
parts Sting and Sparks, want out of the league. The NBA is losing money
on the entire WNBA hand-over-fist.
>I think the same sort of thing
>could very well be accomplished in soccer. Obviously it's going to start out
>small, but most leagues do. This season, the WNBA has expanded. People in the
>US obviously want to see women play basketball at a professional level. I
>think the same sort of thing would work for soccer.
>
>I don't think it's fair to say that because MLS is bad, a women's league here
>would be bad.
The statements later on in your post tend to make me question the level of
knowledge that you have of MLS.
[snip!]
>So, basically - yes the game will survive and continue to flourish. I think
>the US can support a women's pro league. And a good league is all about the
>Benjamin's so it's time for MLS to raise that salary cap and for God's sake
>ditch using shoot outs to settle routine league matches.
Shootout? What's that?
>And finally, a
>league that is fun to watch is made up of talented players and intelligent,
>creative coaches, not of stupid rule changes which insult the intelligence of
>the viewing audience.
Rule changes? What rule changes?
You know, if I were Lech, I'd have hair on my palms and would break out in
a cold sweat whenever I met a real live woman. But other than that, I'd
probably find the most obnoxious way of telling you that you really showed
your lack of knowledge of at least one league with your post. And I'd
probably attribute it to your gender. But fortunately, I'm not Lech, so
I'll just say it probably couldn't hurt for you to tune into a few more MLS
matches and educate yourself.
But don't hold your breath waiting for a shootout.
--
Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 4-8-1, 13 points
Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 6/3, 3-2 loss vs. Tampa Bay
= Champions = Next: 6/7, vs. Columbus
==========================================================================
Jim Riley
wrote:
>True story: WUSA, the proposed women's league that will be starting in 2001
>and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
>of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
>around 14,000.
While the WNBA averaged a bit over 10,000 which at least fills the
arenas half-way.
>I'm not familiar with any money being made with the WNBA. In fact, the
>NBA's Charlotte Hornets and LA Lakers, who currently run their WNBA counter-
>parts Sting and Sparks, want out of the league. The NBA is losing money
>on the entire WNBA hand-over-fist.
All of the WNBA teams are run by NBA franchises, so you aren't going
to have a breakout on whether they are making any money. They added 4
teams this year, so they must have convinced some owners that there
was money to be made. They can probably get a pretty good arena deal
since that is 16 more dates that the arena would otherwise be dark.
They can share front-office staff. And they seem to have kept player
salaries pretty much under control.
>Rule changes? What rule changes?
Two referees. Goalkeeper can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds.
Noah Elliott
>
> (Dustin Christmann) wrote:
>
> >Rule changes? What rule changes?
>
> Two referees. Goalkeeper can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds.
The goalkeeper rule is a worldwide rule that was approved by the
International Board and goes into effect on July 1. MLS chose to
implement it at the start of the season to avoid changing rules in
mid-season.
Two referees are not being used in MLS. They are being used in the US
Open Cup as part of a FIFA-approved trial that is occuring in several
countries around the world, including Italy (in cup matches). And it's
not a rule change, anyway. Whatever the number of referees, they are
supposed to enforce the same rules.
--noah
Huw Morris
>
> On 6 Jun 2000 22:50:04 GMT, dus...@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
> wrote:
>
> >True story: WUSA, the proposed women's league that will be starting in 2001
> >and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
> >of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
> >around 14,000.
>
> While the WNBA averaged a bit over 10,000 which at least fills the
> arenas half-way.
As I understand it, these figures are padded in a way that MLS can only
dream of!
People keep saying that the size of the stadia in MLS are hurting
attendances. But WNBA is drawing 4,000 less people a game, in a popular
American sport, in a small stadium. I think the lesson is that no
women's pro league has really made it yet.
Huw
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2000 22:50:04 GMT, dus...@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >True story: WUSA, the proposed women's league that will be starting in 2001
>> >and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
>> >of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
>> >around 14,000.
>>
>> While the WNBA averaged a bit over 10,000 which at least fills the
>> arenas half-way.
>
>As I understand it, these figures are padded in a way that MLS can only
>dream of!
It's pretty easy to tell whether you have 12,000 in an arena that
seats 18,000.
>People keep saying that the size of the stadia in MLS are hurting
>attendances.
A new NBA/NHL arena runs $150-200 mn. Say $10,000 per seat.
A new NFL stadium $300 mn+, say $5,000 per seat.
Filling up 1/2 that NBA arena is doing more than filling up 20% of the
NFL stadium as far as paying off the stadium.
Someone will perceive a more crowded stadium as having more people, as
being a more intense experience, as being something that is fun to do.
In addition, as regular attendance approaches capacity, people will be
more likely to buy season tickets to be sure of getting in. If you
depend on a walk-up crowd, you have to worry about the early season
match when it is 30 degrees on a Wednesday night, or when there is the
prospect of monsoonal rains. (Chicago has sandwiched a 36,000 crowd
on a weekend between two Wednesday night crowds of 5,000).
You can see the same sort of thing happening in baseball, where most
of the new stadiums are just about 40,000. They might prefer to go
even smaller, except that they want to be able to take advantage of
the larger draws on weekends. In baseball you might have 6 nights in
a row, so it is difficult to get more than the hardcore to every game.
In football on the other hand, new stadiums are more in the 75,000
range because you can fill those 10 times over a 4-5 months.
> But WNBA is drawing 4,000 less people a game, in a popular
>American sport, in a small stadium. I think the lesson is that no
>women's pro league has really made it yet.
Women's basketball is a newly popular American sport. The success of
the WNBA so far is to leverage off the popularity of the NBA and
sharing or arenas, practice facilities, front-off personnel, etc.
Joe Keenan
>
>It's pretty easy to tell whether you have 12,000 in an arena that
>seats 18,000.
WNBA attendance figures this past weekend were around 6-8000.
>A new NBA/NHL arena runs $150-200 mn. Say $10,000 per seat.
>A new NFL stadium $300 mn+, say $5,000 per seat.
>
>Filling up 1/2 that NBA arena is doing more than filling up 20% of the
>NFL stadium as far as paying off the stadium.
MLS and soccer in general are not the reasons NFL stadia are built. Soccer is
simply a summer tenant. Now compare the cost of the new stadium in Columbus for
the Crew per seat and see how long it takes to pay it off.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>>From: Jim Riley
>>It's pretty easy to tell whether you have 12,000 in an arena that
>>seats 18,000.
>
>WNBA attendance figures this past weekend were around 6-8000.
17.5 in NY, 15.3 in Washington, 12.5 in Indianapolis, 12.4 in Houston,
10.0 in Cleveland, 9.8 in Detroit, 9.4 in Minnesota, 6.6 in Charlotte,
and ??? in Seattle. (according to www.wnba.com).
Huw Morris
> >WNBA attendance figures this past weekend were around 6-8000.
>
> 17.5 in NY, 15.3 in Washington, 12.5 in Indianapolis, 12.4 in Houston,
> 10.0 in Cleveland, 9.8 in Detroit, 9.4 in Minnesota, 6.6 in Charlotte,
> and ??? in Seattle. (according to www.wnba.com).
And MLS claimed 36,000 watched the Chicago match. We all know these
figures are bunkum. They should be forced to publish attendance figures
as "bodies through the turnstyles".
Huw
RPP
>In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
>> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>>
>
>Yes. yes it will, but not in the way most Americans around here seem to hope
>it will, or in the way that elitist Europeans seem to imagine it will.
>
>The answer for keeping soccer's popularity in America will not come
>necessarily through MLS, but a women's pro league.
Sorry to break it to you Zlata, women's football is the most awful
sporting exhibition i have ever seen. On par with women's basketball.
Awful passing, slow running, zero physicality.
>
>Think about it - the women's team is two time world cup champs, olympic
>champs, and has a slew of players to chose from. I think that a women's
>league would actually do better, and probably be the best league in the
>world, if there were to be sort of a WMLS. People were really skeptical about
>the WNBA at its inception, but, the best players from around the world have
>come to play there, and people want to watch the game. Girls want to go buy
>jerseys of their favorite players. The WNBA demonstrated that there is money
>to be made in women's professional sports. I think the same sort of thing
>could very well be accomplished in soccer. Obviously it's going to start out
>small, but most leagues do. This season, the WNBA has expanded. People in the
>US obviously want to see women play basketball at a professional level. I
>think the same sort of thing would work for soccer.
>
Women have shown to be able to make shit successful. I.e. boys bands,
Titanic, Leo DiCrapio. However women are very fickle, and will move on
to the next fashionable fad very fast.
As for WNBA, what are its ratings? While the NBA is shown on NBC, WNBA
is shown on something called Lifestyle or something. I never heard of
this network before.
>I don't think it's fair to say that because MLS is bad, a women's league here
>would be bad.
Has nothing to do with MLS and all to do with the inferior athleticism
of women. Women cant compete with men on any level of any sport. Men
are stronger, faster, more agile, have more power, etc. I read
somewhere that the women's 100 m sprint record is worse than what high
school boys run.
>It's like saying that because the Premier League is good, that
>a women's league in England would also be good - tell me how have the English
>women done in international competition lately? The best female players are
>here (the teams in the NCAA are better than many pro teams in Europe),
Doesnt say much. BEsides figure skating, gymnastics and tennis, there
is little interest in women's sports.
Rupert the Sheep Dog, PhD.
>As for WNBA, what are its ratings? While the NBA is shown on NBC, WNBA
>is shown on something called Lifestyle or something. I never heard of
>this network before.
Lifetime is a cable network for women. and NBC only shows two teams,
the rest of them are on smaller networks.
>Has nothing to do with MLS and all to do with the inferior athleticism
>of women. Women cant compete with men on any level of any sport. Men
>are stronger, faster, more agile, have more power, etc. I read
>somewhere that the women's 100 m sprint record is worse than what high
>school boys run.
yeah, but in women's sports they compete against other women, so what
does it matter? and given the choice between watching Mia Hamm or
Ivan Campo, i don't care who can run faster, it's more of a matter of
which one doesn't look like the living dead.
in tennis, the women are getting better ratings than the men on US TV,
partly because slower serves and such mean the ball is in play long
enough to have a game.
and besides, Lech Posnan can't field the best players in the world,
but is that ever going to stop you from supporting them? sometimes
who's best doesn't matter.
Zlata
dus...@nortelnetworks.com wrote:
> In article <8hjhdi$e6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Zlata <stel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> > euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
> >> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
> >>
>
> and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
> of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
> around 14,000.
most leagues start out small, as I said. And MLS had overly high
expectations, especially considering the overly low salary cap. To get
players that can compete on the top level, teams have to fork out the kind of
money that NBA and NFL players get, and no team is willing to do that,
because of, as you mentioned, low attendance. Which is because MLS just isn't
that great. I mean, neither is the Divizia A, but there's decades of
tradition and rivalry and stuff, which gives you an audience base no matter
how crap your league is. You can't expect that with a new league. YOu get
what you pay for, in other words.
>
> I'm not familiar with any money being made with the WNBA. In fact, the
> NBA's Charlotte Hornets and LA Lakers, who currently run their WNBA counter-
> parts Sting and Sparks, want out of the league. The NBA is losing money
> on the entire WNBA hand-over-fist.
Then why did Minnesota and Miami want teams? MAkes no sense you expand a
league that is unprofitable, no? And, as I said where you snipped, it's long
term. The generation "Y" or whatever Newsweek is calling them, has a very
different attitude towards female professional athletes, and towards soccer,
than the majority of today's adult viewers.
>
Also, another interesting tidbit, most, if not, all of the NBA franchises -
and professional sports organizations in general - are in some kind of debt.
One exception - the Clippers. I can't connect it to the WNBA directly, but I
just think it's interesting and would like others to share in this
intereting, but pointless piece of information.
> >I don't think it's fair to say that because MLS is bad, a women's league here
> >would be bad.
>
> The statements later on in your post tend to make me question the level of
> knowledge that you have of MLS.
Are you trying to tell me what MLS is not bad? I mean, "bad" is a subjective
term, so I guess I should define it.
Bad: (adj) 1. in a soccer league, it is, in terms of quality of play, lower
than or equal to Romania's Divizia A. 2. Your best team would get canned by
Dinamo (1st leg) or barely lose or draw them (2nd leg)
If you are familiar with the Divizia A, and how they perform in Europe (which
you are probably, obviously, are not), you would realize this is accurate.
You know, come to think of it, I probably know much more about MLS than you
do the Divizia A. So I am in a much better position to compare the two.
>
> [snip!]
>
> >So, basically - yes the game will survive and continue to flourish. I think
> >the US can support a women's pro league. And a good league is all about the
> >Benjamin's so it's time for MLS to raise that salary cap and for God's sake
> >ditch using shoot outs to settle routine league matches.
>
> Shootout? What's that?
I saw this so either it actually happened or I was hallucinating from boredom
- it was the end of a regulation game, and rather than let it remain a draw,
which any reasonable league would allow to happen, they went into overtime,
and then it was still a draw. And you know what they did??? (I swear to you I
am NOT making this up) they had this weird sort of version of a shoot out,
only it was different from other shootouts, because the kicker got to *take a
running start* (gasp).
Now, This might NOT have been MLS, I mean, I do occasionally get Serie A and
Premier League games on the TV, so maybe it was that. Only I don't think
there is a team called the "Wiz" (now it;s the wizards, but whatever) in
either league last I checked. Or such gaudy kits. But this was last
season....sooooo: either they stopped this strange practice - or the Serie A
teams are not doing so well in Europe for a very good reason.
>
> You know, if I were Lech, I'd have hair on my palms and would break out in
> a cold sweat whenever I met a real live woman. But other than that, I'd
> probably find the most obnoxious way of telling you that you really showed
> your lack of knowledge of at least one league with your post. And I'd
> probably attribute it to your gender. But fortunately, I'm not Lech,
oh well *that's* a relief. Because if you did I would have to go back to the
kitchen and cry.
so
> I'll just say it probably couldn't hurt for you to tune into a few more MLS
> matches and educate yourself.
Oh, I'd say I was in enough pain after watching all the MLS I could choke
down the past few years. And this is after a conscious effort on my behalf to
not only watch, but also to enjoy - I really WANTED to like it, I honestly
did - the only professional soccer the US has to offer. The fact remains,
that I personally find MLS painful to watch. This is because the majority of
the players, and the coaches, are just not that impressive. By impressive I
mean, "original" and "fun to watch". This isn't some kind of elitist European
anti-US rant - there are many creative and original American basketball
players and coaches, for instance, and even football if you're into that sort
of thing. But that doesn't excuse MLS for being boring. Many people have
theories as to why this is - I for one, do not, because deep down: I don't
care. Nor do I care enough to continue this discussion any further.
And when I want to educate myself, I'll read a book.
Zlata
> --
> Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 4-8-1, 13 points
> Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 6/3, 3-2 loss vs. Tampa Bay
> = Champions = Next: 6/7, vs. Columbus
> ==========================================================================
>
Dustin Christmann
>In article <8hjv6s$7oh$1...@nrchh45.us.nortel.com>,
> dus...@nortelnetworks.com wrote:
>> In article <8hjhdi$e6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Zlata <stel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <20000527085509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>> > euro...@aol.com (Europunk3) wrote:
>> >> Do you think US Soccer (MLS) will survive?
>> >>
>>
>> True story: WUSA, the proposed women's league that will be starting in 2001
>> and has signed most of the USA's WWC players, is planning on drawing an average
>> of 6500 people at each game. Currently, the "struggling" MLS is drawing
>> around 14,000.
>
>most leagues start out small, as I said. And MLS had overly high
>expectations, especially considering the overly low salary cap.
I'm not sure that their expectations are overly high. I mean, you are talking
about a league whose players are 75-80% Americans and have been since day one.
And you've probably noticed somewhere along the way that the USA doesn't
exactly have particularly exceptional players. So you can say that the
money men that put together this league probably weren't expecting to put
a league compararble to the Premiership or Serie A from the get-go. In fact,
the last North American league to have what I would term "high expectations"
would be the NASL, who didn't have a salary cap.
>To get players that can compete on the top level, teams have to fork out the
>kind of money that NBA and NFL players get, and no team is willing to do that,
>because of, as you mentioned, low attendance. Which is because MLS just isn't
>that great.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that MLS attendances are low
because they don't have good enough players. Most people would say that it's
because there just aren't that many soccer fans in the United States.
In any case, a more convincing argument against the "better players will
lead to better attendances" thesis is the NASL, who spent far more than MLS,
both in transfer fees and in salaries. MLS' worst-attended season had
roughly the same average attendance as the NASL's best-attended season. Look
it up.
>I mean, neither is the Divizia A, but there's decades of
>tradition and rivalry and stuff, which gives you an audience base no matter
>how crap your league is. You can't expect that with a new league. YOu get
>what you pay for, in other words.
You can't buy tradition and passion. You almost hit the nail on the head in
the first sentence. Spending millions on players is nice, but people get
jaded fairly quickly, even when it comes to bright stars. In other words,
the first time you see World Superstar X playing for your club, it's pretty
neat. By the 10th time, it's no big deal. You gotta care enough about the
team enough to turn out anyway.
>> I'm not familiar with any money being made with the WNBA. In fact, the
>> NBA's Charlotte Hornets and LA Lakers, who currently run their WNBA counter-
>> parts Sting and Sparks, want out of the league. The NBA is losing money
>> on the entire WNBA hand-over-fist.
>
>Then why did Minnesota and Miami want teams?
Given the WNBA's single entity structure and complete ownership by the NBA,
it's hard to quantify how much a particular community "wants" a WNBA team.
The NBA's owners are committed to the WNBA, at least for the time being,
and they all want to make a few bucks off their arenas during the summertime,
so they'll expand the WNBA to new markets, whether or not there's any real
demand or not. Eventually, Dallas will have a WNBA team. Is there an
overwhelming demand here for one? No, not that I can tell.
Because it really doesn't matter. In the NBA's owners' eyes, the WNBA is not
so much about women's basketball as it is about making a few bucks off of
their arenas during the NBA offseason.
>MAkes no sense you expand a league that is unprofitable, no?
Most teams in the NHL lose tens of millions of dollars each season.
Nonetheless, the NHL has expanded from 21 teams in 1991-92 to 30 teams in
2000-01. The NASL expanded from 18 teams in 1977 to 24 in 1978. Expansion
doesn't necessarily portend good things for a league.
>And, as I said where you snipped, it's long
>term. The generation "Y" or whatever Newsweek is calling them, has a very
>different attitude towards female professional athletes, and towards soccer,
>than the majority of today's adult viewers.
Tradition has a very strong pull.
>Also, another interesting tidbit, most, if not, all of the NBA franchises -
>and professional sports organizations in general - are in some kind of debt.
>One exception - the Clippers. I can't connect it to the WNBA directly, but I
>just think it's interesting and would like others to share in this
>intereting, but pointless piece of information.
Actually, both the NFL and NBA are incredibly profitable. Even with the
outrageous salaries that both leagues pay, every single team in each league
is incredibly profitable, mostly due to TV money, merchandising, and interest-
ingly enough, player cost control. Teams in both leagues make money before
they sell a single ticket.
Most NHL teams lose money, due mostly to the fact that player salaries have
accelerated much faster than other revenue sources. Their new TV deal with
ABC/ESPN, which they started this season, is their largest ever and pays them
$120 million per season. Still, that's about one-tenth of the NFL and NBA's
annual TV money. Unfortunately for the NHL, their salary costs are not
one-tenth as high.
As for MLB, there are some profitable teams, there are some unprofitable ones.
Because MLB teams share very little in merchandising or TV money, teams in
large cities make huge amounts of money and can afford to pay big money to
players. Teams in small cities can't. The New York Yankees receive about
$50 million a year for local TV coverage alone. That's more that most teams
spend on player salaries. Needless to say, George Steinbrenner can afford
better players and still earn a handsome profit.
>> >I don't think it's fair to say that because MLS is bad, a women's league here
>> >would be bad.
>>
>> The statements later on in your post tend to make me question the level of
>> knowledge that you have of MLS.
>
>Are you trying to tell me what MLS is not bad? I mean, "bad" is a subjective
>term, so I guess I should define it.
I'm trying to tell you that your knowledge of MLS is rather limited and
therefore, your opinion of it should be taken with a great of salt.
>Bad: (adj) 1. in a soccer league, it is, in terms of quality of play, lower
>than or equal to Romania's Divizia A. 2. Your best team would get canned by
>Dinamo (1st leg) or barely lose or draw them (2nd leg)
You know, for four seasons now, I've read this opinion from people who let
their chauvinisms get in the way of their objectivity. MLS teams have played
clubs from all over the world, both in friendlies and in competitions that
have meant something, and I've just got one question:
WHEN'S IT GOING TO START HAPPENING?
I mean, really, about the only instances where an MLS team has played inter-
nation competition, and gotten their hides handed to them are a 1997 friendly
between Chivas and the Burn which Chivas won 5-0, and the 1998 CONCACAF Cup
Winners Cup, where Necaxa beat the Burn 4-1. (Notice an underlying theme
here?) Everything else has been slightly more competitive.
>If you are familiar with the Divizia A, and how they perform in Europe (which
>you are probably, obviously, are not), you would realize this is accurate.
>You know, come to think of it, I probably know much more about MLS than you
>do the Divizia A. So I am in a much better position to compare the two.
I really question how much you know about MLS. In fact, what little I do
know about Divizia A is extremely modest. However, the most important thing
I know about Divizia A is that I know very little about Divizia A.
>> [snip!]
>>
>> >So, basically - yes the game will survive and continue to flourish. I think
>> >the US can support a women's pro league. And a good league is all about the
>> >Benjamin's so it's time for MLS to raise that salary cap and for God's sake
>> >ditch using shoot outs to settle routine league matches.
>>
>> Shootout? What's that?
>
>I saw this so either it actually happened or I was hallucinating from boredom
>- it was the end of a regulation game, and rather than let it remain a draw,
>which any reasonable league would allow to happen, they went into overtime,
>and then it was still a draw. And you know what they did??? (I swear to you I
>am NOT making this up) they had this weird sort of version of a shoot out,
>only it was different from other shootouts, because the kicker got to *take a
>running start* (gasp).
True story: Dallas earned a draw this past weekend at Columbus. To my
knowledge, it's still a draw, and both teams earned a point.
Actually, I can't keep this up. You know, I was going to keep this going
for a few more posts, until you slowly realized that MLS abandoned the
shootout this past offseason, but I can't do it. I'm sorry.
(For the record, in MLS, they play 90 minutes. If the score's level, they
play 10 minutes of golden-goal overtime. If it's still level, it remains
a draw. And oh yeah, those 90 minutes are kept by the ref.)
>Now, This might NOT have been MLS, I mean, I do occasionally get Serie A and
>Premier League games on the TV, so maybe it was that. Only I don't think
>there is a team called the "Wiz" (now it;s the wizards, but whatever) in
>either league last I checked. Or such gaudy kits. But this was last
>season....sooooo: either they stopped this strange practice - or the Serie A
>teams are not doing so well in Europe for a very good reason.
Personally, I'd lean toward the former explanation.
>> You know, if I were Lech, I'd have hair on my palms and would break out in
>> a cold sweat whenever I met a real live woman. But other than that, I'd
>> probably find the most obnoxious way of telling you that you really showed
>> your lack of knowledge of at least one league with your post. And I'd
>> probably attribute it to your gender. But fortunately, I'm not Lech,
>
>oh well *that's* a relief. Because if you did I would have to go back to the
>kitchen and cry.
There, there.
> so
>> I'll just say it probably couldn't hurt for you to tune into a few more MLS
>> matches and educate yourself.
>
>Oh, I'd say I was in enough pain after watching all the MLS I could choke
>down the past few years. And this is after a conscious effort on my behalf to
>not only watch, but also to enjoy - I really WANTED to like it, I honestly
>did - the only professional soccer the US has to offer. The fact remains,
>that I personally find MLS painful to watch. This is because the majority of
>the players, and the coaches, are just not that impressive. By impressive I
>mean, "original" and "fun to watch".
Through the miracle of Fox Sports World, I have had the chance to see a
wide selection of soccer from all over the world over the past couple of
years. The Premiership, Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga, UEFA Cup, you
name it. Most of it's very enjoyable and fun to watch. However, I have
also seen soccer that I KNOW is good, that I know is some of the best in
the world, but I just can't watch it. It's very boring to me, mostly because
I don't really care about the teams in question.
I mean, a good example would be the matches that they showed from the Toulon
U-21 tournament this past week. There were some darn good teams there, but
I just couldn't watch it, mostly because I didn't care. U-whatever
competitions don't do anything for me. I only really care about the
senior-level stuff. So I changed the station.
>This isn't some kind of elitist European
>anti-US rant - there are many creative and original American basketball
>players and coaches, for instance, and even football if you're into that sort
>of thing.
Actually, having read this newsgroup for a few years, I can tell the differ-
ence between mere rants and well-reasoned opinions that are betrayed by
flimsy premises.
>But that doesn't excuse MLS for being boring. Many people have
>theories as to why this is - I for one, do not, because deep down: I don't
>care.
I thought that you really wanted to like it.
>Nor do I care enough to continue this discussion any further.
Too bad. I wanted to hear more about how Dinamo would beat any MLS team
by a minimum of 6-0.
--
Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 5-8-2, 17 points
Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 6/10, 1-1 tie at Columbus
= Champions = Next: 6/14, vs. Tennessee (Open Cup)
==========================================================================
Joe Keenan
The place was nearly empty by kickoff.
RPP
>>
>> You know, if I were Lech, I'd have hair on my palms and would break out in
>> a cold sweat whenever I met a real live woman. But other than that, I'd
>> probably find the most obnoxious way of telling you that you really showed
>> your lack of knowledge of at least one league with your post. And I'd
>> probably attribute it to your gender. But fortunately, I'm not Lech,
>
>oh well *that's* a relief. Because if you did I would have to go back to the
>kitchen and cry.
>
Get back in the kitchen woman!
Jim Riley
>I saw this so either it actually happened or I was hallucinating from boredom
>- it was the end of a regulation game, and rather than let it remain a draw,
>which any reasonable league would allow to happen, they went into overtime,
>and then it was still a draw. And you know what they did??? (I swear to you I
>am NOT making this up) they had this weird sort of version of a shoot out,
>only it was different from other shootouts, because the kicker got to *take a
>running start* (gasp).
If could have been Yugoslavia 10 years ago.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <8i1nph$ekq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Zlata <stel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <8hjv6s$7oh$1...@nrchh45.us.nortel.com>,
>In any case, a more convincing argument against the "better players will
>lead to better attendances" thesis is the NASL, who spent far more than MLS,
>both in transfer fees and in salaries. MLS' worst-attended season had
>roughly the same average attendance as the NASL's best-attended season. Look
>it up.
Every MLS season but the first has had roughly the same average
attendance, which was roughly the same as the NASL had 3 years before
the league folded. The MLS has yet to match the best NASL seasonal
attendance in Washington, Tampa Bay, Ft.Lauderdale, San Jose, and
Dallas.
Dustin Christmann
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Every MLS season but the first has had roughly the same average
>attendance, which was roughly the same as the NASL had 3 years before
>the league folded.
Well, you have to look deeper there. Three years before the NASL folded,
the attendance may have been roughly the same, but there are major differences:
* The NASL was spending far more on players than MLS is now and it was
losing money a lot more rapidly.
* TV coverage was abysmal. The NASL had lost its national TV deal with ABC
after 1980, and which ESPN did cover some games, it was still a small and
struggling cable network before cable TV took off.
* It was not a particularly attractive league for sponsors or broadcasters,
particularly in the United States. Yes, it had teams in New York and
Chicago, but before the 1981 season, it lost teams in Boston, Houston,
Detroit, and Philadelphia, and after the 1981 season, it lost teams in LA and
Orange County, Dallas, Atlanta, and Washington. By the start of the 1982
season, there were 14 teams left, four of which were in Canada. Other than
New York and Chicago, the only remaining American markets in the league were
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Tulsa, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Seattle, San Diego,
Portland, and the San Francisco Bay Area. In the early '80s, only Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale and the San Francisco Bay Area could be considered "major markets."
By contrast, MLS is not losing as much money, has far better television
coverage, and is in most of the major US markets.
>The MLS has yet to match the best NASL seasonal
>attendance in Washington, Tampa Bay, Ft.Lauderdale, San Jose, and
>Dallas.
Dallas?
The Tornado's attendance zenith was an average of 16,511 per game in 1977.
The Burn's drew 16,011 per game in 1996. Technically, you're right, but...
Even beyond that, however, the Burn's attendance has been much more robust
than the Tornado's. Other than 1976 and 1977, the Tornado drew four-figure
attendances every year over their 15 year existence. Their final season,
1981, they drew 4,670 per game. By contrast, the Burn has drawn over
10,000 per game every season except 1997, when they drew 9,678 per game.
Stan collins
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:33:55 -0700, Pat Huber <p...@krl.caltech.edu>
> wrote:
> >john Rose wrote:
> >> Joncee wrote:
> >> > Yes when it comes to disposble cash the US is a prime target.
> >> > Remember the most successful World Cup in both mens and womens was held in the
> >> > USA.
> >> successful in what way? I remember half empty stadia.
> >> John
> >Highest attendance, highest AVERAGE attendance....
> I think domestic football would be a bit different from the WC in the
> US, in the sense that a lot of the attendance was made up of ethnic
> minorities (Irish, Germans, Mexicans etc.) supporting their mother
> countries
Actually, that's not really true, either. There were a lot of games in
WC94 where the attendances were far greater than any ethnic minority
would justify. WASPs went to WC games in droves. The difference is
that a league season is a mundane, week-to-week grind, whereas the WC
comes with quite a bit of pageantry and is short.
Stan collins
Stan collins
> >Rule changes? What rule changes?
> Two referees. Goalkeeper can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds.
MLS doesn't use two referees. (Not in actual league play. The Open Cup
apparently does, tho.) Furthermore, they adopted the six second rule
when mandated by FIFA.
Stan collins
Huw Morris
> MLS doesn't use two referees. (Not in actual league play. The Open Cup
> apparently does, tho.) Furthermore, they adopted the six second rule
> when mandated by FIFA.
Even the two referee experiment is mandated by FIFA, I believe.
Huw
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <8i7aj3$8g0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>Every MLS season but the first has had roughly the same average
>>attendance, which was roughly the same as the NASL had 3 years before
>>the league folded.
Make this 4 years. The three peak seasons for attendance were
1978-1980 (the average for 1981 was higher than 1978, because of some
of the weaker teams dropping or moving after 1980).
>Well, you have to look deeper there. Three years before the NASL folded,
>the attendance may have been roughly the same, but there are major differences:
It was actually better in the stronger cities. It was held back by
cities with attendance in the 5,000 range.
>* The NASL was spending far more on players than MLS is now and it was
>losing money a lot more rapidly.
True. One thing that the MLS should be credited with is limiting the
number of teams, which means that they can stock the teams with
Americans and still be competitive. In the case of NASL, they had to
hide their American players.
>* TV coverage was abysmal. The NASL had lost its national TV deal with ABC
>after 1980, and which ESPN did cover some games, it was still a small and
>struggling cable network before cable TV took off.
Didn't the TV contracts pay about the same?
>* It was not a particularly attractive league for sponsors or broadcasters,
>particularly in the United States. Yes, it had teams in New York and
>Chicago, but before the 1981 season, it lost teams in Boston, Houston,
>Detroit, and Philadelphia, and after the 1981 season, it lost teams in LA and
>Orange County, Dallas, Atlanta, and Washington.
You're talking about the point after the decline set in. Attendance
in Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia was dismal. You're suggesting
that there was a big TV market in cities that had a hard time drawing
5,000 to a match (and don't have a MLS team either). I don't think
the folks in Houston are going to tune in to watch the Burn.
> By the start of the 1982
>season,
After the decline had set in.
> there were 14 teams left, four of which were in Canada. Other than
>New York and Chicago, the only remaining American markets in the league were
>Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Tulsa, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Seattle, San Diego,
>Portland, and the San Francisco Bay Area. In the early '80s, only Miami-Ft.
>Lauderdale and the San Francisco Bay Area could be considered "major markets."
In 1980, NASL had teams everywhere that the MLS does except Columbus
and Kansas City, and had other large markets that had drawn 20,000+
attendance per match (Twin Cities, Seattle, and San Diego). The MLS
has done much better in LA, and somewhat better in Chicago.
In 2000, Seattle is the #12 market (and would be the 8th best market
for MLS). Looking at the other cities, perhaps it has pushed past
Cleveland in the past two decades (other markets of somewhat smaller
size are Tampa-St.Petersburg, Phoenix, Miami-Ft.Lauderdale, and Denver
which have been growing as fast or faster than Seattle. Twin Cities
are #14, and might have been a couple of spots higher in 1980.
>By contrast, MLS is not losing as much money, has far better television
>coverage, and is in most of the major US markets.
In 1980, NASL was also in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston,
Seattle, and Minneapolis-St.Paul (i.e. they had teams in the the top
14 2000 markets).
While the MLS does have teams in 7 of the 8 top markets, there other
teams are in the #13, #16, #18, #31, and #34 markets.
>>The MLS has yet to match the best NASL seasonal
>>attendance in Washington, Tampa Bay, Ft.Lauderdale, San Jose, and
>>Dallas.
>
>Dallas?
>The Tornado's attendance zenith was an average of 16,511 per game in 1977.
>The Burn's drew 16,011 per game in 1996. Technically, you're right, but...
>Even beyond that, however, the Burn's attendance has been much more robust
>than the Tornado's. Other than 1976 and 1977, the Tornado drew four-figure
>attendances every year over their 15 year existence. Their final season,
>1981, they drew 4,670 per game. By contrast, the Burn has drawn over
>10,000 per game every season except 1997, when they drew 9,678 per game.
... and they have since crawled back upward to about 75% of the best
Tornado attendance.
Zlata
main points of my original post are being badly misrepresented in your
argument, so I will make a few points to start out and I will continue
with a response to a few specific statements.
1. You made your point very adequately about the financial aspects of
professional sports. I am not going to continue to argue that, for one
thing, that has really nothing to do with what I was originally saying.
2. The premises for my first post were:
A. Women's soccer, and most other sports, in the US dominate in the
international arena. Americans, believe it or not, tend to have a much
better attitude toward female professional athletes than people in most
other countries. Thus, IF there were to be a pro league here, it would
be not only the best in quality but also have the largest viewing
audience.
B. The men's game has a more shaky future given the quality of play of
the men's national team and in MLS - although both have improved over
the years.
> You know, for four seasons now, I've read this opinion from people who
let
> their chauvinisms get in the way of their objectivity.
If I listen to the radio, and here several NSYNC songs, and I come to
the conclusion that they are trite, repetitive, and of general low
quality, is it because I have heard the songs and have made the
judgement, or is it because I would have thought so because I listen to
mostly Radiohead CDs and the local rap station?
MLS teams have
played
> clubs from all over the world, both in friendlies and in competitions
that
> have meant something, and I've just got one question:
>
> WHEN'S IT GOING TO START HAPPENING?
I have a question: how does that prove the quality of the league? So
what, MLS teams play teams from other leagues and get decent results? So
do teams from Estonia, are you then trying to tell me that the Estonian
league is not competitive in the international front?
>
> I mean, really, about the only instances where an MLS team has played
inter-
> nation competition, and gotten their hides handed to them are a 1997
friendly
> between Chivas and the Burn which Chivas won 5-0, and the 1998
CONCACAF Cup
> Winners Cup, where Necaxa beat the Burn 4-1. (Notice an underlying
theme
> here?) Everything else has been slightly more competitive.
That really means absolutely nothing. There are teams from second-tier
leagues who get good results against teams from first-tier leagues. This
happens annually - It's called the UEFA cup.
>
> I really question how much you know about MLS. In fact, what little I
do
> know about Divizia A is extremely modest. However, the most important
thing
> I know about Divizia A is that I know very little about Divizia A.
Then what makes you think that MLS is better? Having seen games from
both leagues, it is possible to determine where the better playing is
taking place.
>
> >> [snip!]
> Actually, I can't keep this up. You know, I was going to keep this
going
> for a few more posts, until you slowly realized that MLS abandoned the
> shootout this past offseason, but I can't do it. I'm sorry.
>
> (For the record, in MLS, they play 90 minutes. If the score's level,
they
> play 10 minutes of golden-goal overtime. If it's still level, it
remains
> a draw. And oh yeah, those 90 minutes are kept by the ref.)
Well, I'm glad to see that they're getting more normal. Good for
that.
>
> > so
> >> I'll just say it probably couldn't hurt for you to tune into a few
> Through the miracle of Fox Sports World, I have had the chance to see
a
> wide selection of soccer from all over the world over the past couple
of
> years. The Premiership, Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga, UEFA Cup,
you
> name it. Most of it's very enjoyable and fun to watch. However, I
have
> also seen soccer that I KNOW is good, that I know is some of the best
in
> the world, but I just can't watch it. It's very boring to me, mostly
because
> I don't really care about the teams in question.
OK - so that is what separates someone like myself from someone like
you. When you are raised in a culture where soccer is the national
passion, if not obssession, you're going to have a different attitude
towards the game than someone who will watch if the local team is
playing. Someone else, such as myself, will watch a match just for the
sake of being able to watch a match. I do respect that difference, and I
know it applies to all sports.
I have to say, it makes it more fun if you have a team to cheer for. I
usually pick the one with the better kit, if I don't have a strong
opinion about either team. This actually got me into minor trouble when
I was about 12 (this was a time when the only leagues I knew were the
Divizia A and the Premier League), and decided that, after a few Serie A
matches, my two favorite teams were AC Milan and Inter. But I digress.
>
> I mean, a good example would be the matches that they showed from the
Toulon
> U-21 tournament this past week. There were some darn good teams
there, but
> I just couldn't watch it, mostly because I didn't care. U-whatever
> competitions don't do anything for me. I only really care about the
> senior-level stuff. So I changed the station.
U-whatever, except maybe U 21, which I may very well lose interest in as
I get older, is stupid. IN no way does the way a player compare against
others when he is sixteen relate to the way he will stack up when he is
20, or 24, and on down the line.
here's a project for someone: (not me because I already had my project
for the summer - it's on www.soccer-europe.com, go check it out) Find
out how many players in the European Championship tournament were U-21
and U-16 or whatever internationals. As the U-age gets younger, I
predict the number of players still on the internationa scene will
decrease.
>
g.
>
> Actually, having read this newsgroup for a few years, I can tell the
differ-
> ence between mere rants and well-reasoned opinions that are betrayed
by
> flimsy premises.
I don't see how any of the points I made (see above) are flimsy
>
> >But that
> I thought that you really wanted to like it.
I also felt that way about Tofu at one time. But then, at times like
that, you decide that your time is better than to be wasted on something
which really, you probably aren't going to enjoy any more no matter how
much you choke down. So then, you just say "fuck it" and order the
steak.
>
> >Nor do I care enough to continue this discussion any further.
>
> Too bad. I wanted to hear more about how Dinamo would beat any MLS
team
> by a minimum of 6-0.
>
Actually, if you were to examine Dinamo's scores against and lower table
teams, you would find a lot of 4-0, 5-1, 6-0 type scores. This was of
course, when Adrian Mutu and Ioan Vladoiu were still there. They were
even getting scores like this against Steaua and Rapid, the second and
third placed teams.
Now, in real life, if MLS were magically whisked into the Divizia A,
Dinamo would still kick everyone's ass, Rapid would come second, and the
best MLS teams would be competing with Steaua, Arges, and the like for
third place. I think this is very realistic, and if you don't like
getting compared to a broke-ass league in a quasi-third world country,
get over yourself already. People familiar with MLS and the quality of
leagues in eastern europe would agree with me.
Zlata
> --
> Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 5-8-2, 17 points
> Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 6/10, 1-1 tie at Columbus
> = Champions = Next: 6/14, vs. Tennessee (Open
Cup)
>
========================================================================
==
>
Dustin Christmann
[snip]
>MLS teams have
>played
>> clubs from all over the world, both in friendlies and in competitions
>that
>> have meant something, and I've just got one question:
>>
>> WHEN'S IT GOING TO START HAPPENING?
>
>I have a question: how does that prove the quality of the league? So
>what, MLS teams play teams from other leagues and get decent results? So
>do teams from Estonia, are you then trying to tell me that the Estonian
>league is not competitive in the international front?
Memo to Zlata: YOU are the one claiming that Legitimate Team X could beat
the best of MLS handily. I honestly don't know how good the league is, and
really, think that it's a matter of "apples and oranges" anyway. The most
diehard argument that I'll make is that the level of play in MLS doesn't
completely suck. The thing is, I've read the "Legitimate Team X could beat
any MLS team handily" for four years now. I'm still waiting for the proof.
I'll allow for the possibility that MLS completely blows goats. I'm just
asking for some proof, that's all. Frankly, there's a lot more proof out
there for my thesis that MLS doesn't completely suck.
>> I mean, really, about the only instances where an MLS team has played
>inter-
>> nation competition, and gotten their hides handed to them are a 1997
>friendly
>> between Chivas and the Burn which Chivas won 5-0, and the 1998
>CONCACAF Cup
>> Winners Cup, where Necaxa beat the Burn 4-1. (Notice an underlying
>theme
>> here?) Everything else has been slightly more competitive.
>
>That really means absolutely nothing. There are teams from second-tier
>leagues who get good results against teams from first-tier leagues. This
>happens annually - It's called the UEFA cup.
When will it mean something? OK, friendlies don't matter. We've established
that time and again in this newsgroup and I agree with it. That's why I
didn't bring up Hamburg SV's recent tour of the USA, which saw them lose to
Chicago 5-1 and lose to Columbus 4-1. I mean, really, none of the three
clubs involved fielded their "A" sides and all three clubs had other things
on their minds -- in Hamburg's case, vacation, and in Chicago's and Columbus'
cases, their upcoming league schedules.
But color me amused that continental competitions have started losing meaning.
>> I really question how much you know about MLS. In fact, what little I
>do
>> know about Divizia A is extremely modest. However, the most important
>thing
>> I know about Divizia A is that I know very little about Divizia A.
>
>Then what makes you think that MLS is better? Having seen games from
>both leagues, it is possible to determine where the better playing is
>taking place.
Please find the quote where I stated that MLS is better than Divizia A. I'll
give you a few minutes.
...
Didn't find it, did you? (Remember: Reading. Is. Fundamental.)
In any case, I view the whole "I've watched MLS games and I've watched games
from League Y, and I KNOW that League Y's games are better" argument with a
HUGE amount of skepticism. Why? It's so subjective. People have their
preferences and biases on all number of fronts, whether it be knowledge of
the players or preference of a style of play or the songs that are sung by
the fans.
>> >> [snip!]
>> Actually, I can't keep this up. You know, I was going to keep this
>going
>> for a few more posts, until you slowly realized that MLS abandoned the
>> shootout this past offseason, but I can't do it. I'm sorry.
>>
>> (For the record, in MLS, they play 90 minutes. If the score's level,
>they
>> play 10 minutes of golden-goal overtime. If it's still level, it
>remains
>> a draw. And oh yeah, those 90 minutes are kept by the ref.)
>
>Well, I'm glad to see that they're getting more normal. Good for
>that.
And you know, it wasn't exactly a state secret. In fact, it was probably
the biggest news of the offseason. Probably bigger than the signing of
Matthaeus. (Then again, there are probably 10 things that happened in the
MLS offseason that were more important than Matthaeus' signing. Contrary
to what the German tabloids think. But I digress.) So you can probably
understand why I'm not exactly bowled over by your knowledge of the league
or the opinions you derive from that knowledge.
>> > so
>> >> I'll just say it probably couldn't hurt for you to tune into a few
>
>> Through the miracle of Fox Sports World, I have had the chance to see
>a
>> wide selection of soccer from all over the world over the past couple
>of
>> years. The Premiership, Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga, UEFA Cup,
>you
>> name it. Most of it's very enjoyable and fun to watch. However, I
>have
>> also seen soccer that I KNOW is good, that I know is some of the best
>in
>> the world, but I just can't watch it. It's very boring to me, mostly
>because
>> I don't really care about the teams in question.
>
>OK - so that is what separates someone like myself from someone like
>you. When you are raised in a culture where soccer is the national
>passion, if not obssession, you're going to have a different attitude
>towards the game than someone who will watch if the local team is
>playing. Someone else, such as myself, will watch a match just for the
>sake of being able to watch a match. I do respect that difference, and I
>know it applies to all sports.
But here's my point: The enjoyment has a lot to do with having a stake in
the match. That stake can be your favorite team playing; the match having
an impact on your favorite team's position in the table; a favorite player
playing; you're having a general interest in the league or the competition;
you're having money on the match; or whatever.
Back before I was married, I kept the TV on Fox Sports World whenever I
watched TV, except when I was watching an MLS match, and I saw all sorts of
matches. The ones I enjoyed were the ones I actually CARED about. Now that
I'm married, sitting on the couch watching soccer for hours on end isn't an
option. So I have to budget my soccer-watching time and I have to make sure
that I am likely to enjoy the match I'm going to watch. And having spent
some time thinking about it, I've determined that the chances of my enjoying
a match that I care about are much greater than the chances of my enjoying
a match I don't care about. (And even then, I'll be watching Boca-River --
a match I do care about, simply because of its history -- and my wife will
come into the room and give me a "are you going to sit on your butt all day
and watch TV" look.)
So you don't enjoy watching MLS matches. Could it have something to do with
the fact that you don't have a stake in those matches?
>I have to say, it makes it more fun if you have a team to cheer for. I
>usually pick the one with the better kit, if I don't have a strong
>opinion about either team. This actually got me into minor trouble when
>I was about 12 (this was a time when the only leagues I knew were the
>Divizia A and the Premier League), and decided that, after a few Serie A
>matches, my two favorite teams were AC Milan and Inter. But I digress.
>
>>
>> I mean, a good example would be the matches that they showed from the
>Toulon
>> U-21 tournament this past week. There were some darn good teams
>there, but
>> I just couldn't watch it, mostly because I didn't care. U-whatever
>> competitions don't do anything for me. I only really care about the
>> senior-level stuff. So I changed the station.
>
>U-whatever, except maybe U 21, which I may very well lose interest in as
> I get older, is stupid. IN no way does the way a player compare against
>others when he is sixteen relate to the way he will stack up when he is
>20, or 24, and on down the line.
>
>here's a project for someone: (not me because I already had my project
>for the summer - it's on www.soccer-europe.com, go check it out) Find
>out how many players in the European Championship tournament were U-21
>and U-16 or whatever internationals. As the U-age gets younger, I
>predict the number of players still on the internationa scene will
>decrease.
You're telling Noah about the flood. I get into arguments all the time with
friends of mine who obsess about players in U-20 or U-23 competitions (as
well as senior-level players, of course). In their minds, these players
matter. They never stop to think that most of those guys will be out of the
game (at least at a high level) within five years. It happens all the time
in all sorts of sports. So yeah, it's cool that Landon Donovan has signed
with Bayer Leverkusen and all that, but he might be sacking my groceries
five years from now.
>> Actually, having read this newsgroup for a few years, I can tell the
>differ-
>> ence between mere rants and well-reasoned opinions that are betrayed
>by
>> flimsy premises.
>
>I don't see how any of the points I made (see above) are flimsy
Let's just say that I found some of your points, particularly about MLS,
a little less than rock-solid.
[snip]
>> >Nor do I care enough to continue this discussion any further.
>>
>> Too bad. I wanted to hear more about how Dinamo would beat any MLS
>team
>> by a minimum of 6-0.
>>
>
>Actually, if you were to examine Dinamo's scores against and lower table
>teams, you would find a lot of 4-0, 5-1, 6-0 type scores. This was of
>course, when Adrian Mutu and Ioan Vladoiu were still there. They were
>even getting scores like this against Steaua and Rapid, the second and
>third placed teams.
And this is entertaining for you? Or are you a Dinamo fan? (Sorry if this
is a dumb question. I mean, I have a hard time keeping track of who roots
for what clubs.) Call me Mr. Demanding, but I'd say that any match that's
decided by halftime is entertaining only for the fans of the winning team.
>Now, in real life, if MLS were magically whisked into the Divizia A,
>Dinamo would still kick everyone's ass, Rapid would come second, and the
>best MLS teams would be competing with Steaua, Arges, and the like for
>third place. I think this is very realistic, and if you don't like
>getting compared to a broke-ass league in a quasi-third world country,
>get over yourself already.
We could have an argument over whether or not Dinamo and Rapid are represen-
tative of Divizia A as a whole. I mean, Rangers and Celtic belong to the
Scottish Premier Division, but very few people would argue that they're in the
same league as the rest of the Scottish Premier Division. Are the best MLS
teams better than Rangers and Celtic? Probably not. Are they better than the
other 10 teams in that division? Most likely, yes.
So the question is: Are the best MLS teams better or worse than the bulk of
the teams in Divizia A? (That is, other than Dinamo and Rapid.)
>People familiar with MLS and the quality of leagues in eastern europe would
>agree with me.
Lech doesn't count.
--
Thanx, = Dallas Burn = Record: 5-8-2, 17 points
Dustin Christmann = 1997 US Open Cup = Last: 6/14, 3-0 win vs. Tennessee (OC)
= Champions = Next: 6/17, vs. Kansas City
==========================================================================
Dustin Christmann
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2000 07:52:06 GMT, dus...@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8i7aj3$8g0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>Every MLS season but the first has had roughly the same average
>>>attendance, which was roughly the same as the NASL had 3 years before
>>>the league folded.
>
>Make this 4 years. The three peak seasons for attendance were
>1978-1980 (the average for 1981 was higher than 1978, because of some
>of the weaker teams dropping or moving after 1980).
Unfortunately, some of those weaker teams were in major cities.
>>Well, you have to look deeper there. Three years before the NASL folded,
>>the attendance may have been roughly the same, but there are major differences:
>
>It was actually better in the stronger cities. It was held back by
>cities with attendance in the 5,000 range.
True. While the best-attended MLS teams don't get nearly the numbers that
the best-attended NASL teams did, the worst-attended MLS teams get much more
than the 4-5,000 that the worst-attended NASL teams got. But really, there
weren't more than a few teams that truly got great numbers in the NASL.
For example, in 1980, there were four teams, New York, Seattle, Vancouver,
and Tampa Bay, that drew better than what MLS teams get now.
Another thing that has to be taken into account is that while MLS actually
SELLS tickets to the vast majority of the attendances that it reports,
ticket giveaways were a lot more rampant in the NASL.
>>* The NASL was spending far more on players than MLS is now and it was
>>losing money a lot more rapidly.
>
>True. One thing that the MLS should be credited with is limiting the
>number of teams, which means that they can stock the teams with
>Americans and still be competitive. In the case of NASL, they had to
>hide their American players.
And you can look at it this way: MLS is getting a lot better attendance for
the money that they're spending than the NASL did. The NASL in 1980 and
MLS in 2000 are getting roughly the same attendance. However, MLS is doing
it with lesser lights than the NASL did.
>>* TV coverage was abysmal. The NASL had lost its national TV deal with ABC
>>after 1980, and which ESPN did cover some games, it was still a small and
>>struggling cable network before cable TV took off.
>
>Didn't the TV contracts pay about the same?
I honestly don't know. But you'd have to look at MLS' TV situation a lot more
positively in that more of its games are seen by more people. Yes, MLS has
a huge percentage of it's national telecasts on ESPN and ESPN2, but in the
year 2000, ESPN is widespread and ESPN2 is getting almost as widespread.
Mind you, this has more to do with the explosion of cable TV since 1980 than
anything else...
>>* It was not a particularly attractive league for sponsors or broadcasters,
>>particularly in the United States. Yes, it had teams in New York and
>>Chicago, but before the 1981 season, it lost teams in Boston, Houston,
>>Detroit, and Philadelphia, and after the 1981 season, it lost teams in LA and
>>Orange County, Dallas, Atlanta, and Washington.
>
>You're talking about the point after the decline set in. Attendance
>in Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia was dismal. You're suggesting
>that there was a big TV market in cities that had a hard time drawing
>5,000 to a match (and don't have a MLS team either).
Frankly, I don't see why Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia couldn't have
drawn respectable numbers. I don't see that they were intrinsically any
worse than any of the better cities in the league. (And really, this is
evidenced by the drastic difference between the Tea Men's attendances and
the Revolution's. I don't think things have changed THAT much since 1980.)
I can only conclude that many NASL teams were run with an incompetence that
MLS can only imagine.
>I don't think the folks in Houston are going to tune in to watch the Burn.
And yet, Houston has the highest ratings of any non-MLS city for MLS national
telecasts.
>> By the start of the 1982
>>season,
>
>After the decline had set in.
Well, I was going with "three years before the end" in my analysis.
>> there were 14 teams left, four of which were in Canada. Other than
>>New York and Chicago, the only remaining American markets in the league were
>>Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Tulsa, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Seattle, San Diego,
>>Portland, and the San Francisco Bay Area. In the early '80s, only Miami-Ft.
>>Lauderdale and the San Francisco Bay Area could be considered "major markets."
>
>In 1980, NASL had teams everywhere that the MLS does except Columbus
>and Kansas City, and had other large markets that had drawn 20,000+
>attendance per match (Twin Cities, Seattle, and San Diego).
Substitute "Tulsa" for "San Diego." The Sockers never drew that well.
>The MLS has done much better in LA, and somewhat better in Chicago.
And much better in New England.
>In 2000, Seattle is the #12 market (and would be the 8th best market
>for MLS). Looking at the other cities, perhaps it has pushed past
>Cleveland in the past two decades (other markets of somewhat smaller
>size are Tampa-St.Petersburg, Phoenix, Miami-Ft.Lauderdale, and Denver
>which have been growing as fast or faster than Seattle. Twin Cities
>are #14, and might have been a couple of spots higher in 1980.
However, compared to LA, Philly, and Detroit in 1980, these were all secon-
dary markets and not as important.
>>By contrast, MLS is not losing as much money, has far better television
>>coverage, and is in most of the major US markets.
>
>In 1980, NASL was also in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston,
>Seattle, and Minneapolis-St.Paul (i.e. they had teams in the the top
>14 2000 markets).
But how many of those teams in big markets were weak? The big-market teams
that were gone by the end of the 1981 season (Atlanta, California, Dallas,
Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New England, Philadelphia, and Washington) were
almost exclusively in the bottom half of the league in attendance in 1980.
The only exceptions were Washington (#6) and Los Angeles (#12). I mean,
having teams in big markets is nice. Having teams in big markets that aren't
circling the drain are even better.
>While the MLS does have teams in 7 of the 8 top markets, there other
>teams are in the #13, #16, #18, #31, and #34 markets.
And most people connected with MLS would tell you that they'd like to be in
Philadelphia and Detroit and Houston and Seattle. However, I would argue
that it would be worse for MLS to rush into Philly, sign a bad stadium deal,
and settle for an investor-operator who wasn't committed to the league or
wouldn't spend the money to market the team properly, than it would be for
MLS to not be there.
>>>The MLS has yet to match the best NASL seasonal
>>>attendance in Washington, Tampa Bay, Ft.Lauderdale, San Jose, and
>>>Dallas.
>>
>>Dallas?
>
>>The Tornado's attendance zenith was an average of 16,511 per game in 1977.
>>The Burn's drew 16,011 per game in 1996. Technically, you're right, but...
>
>>Even beyond that, however, the Burn's attendance has been much more robust
>>than the Tornado's. Other than 1976 and 1977, the Tornado drew four-figure
>>attendances every year over their 15 year existence. Their final season,
>>1981, they drew 4,670 per game. By contrast, the Burn has drawn over
>>10,000 per game every season except 1997, when they drew 9,678 per game.
>
>... and they have since crawled back upward to about 75% of the best
>Tornado attendance.
But I would argue that the Tornado's attendances in 1976 and 1977 were so
unlike the attendances in their other 13 seasons that you can't consider
them to be representative of the Tornado's attendance.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <8ia68p$b46$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 2000 07:52:06 GMT, dus...@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
>>wrote:
>>It was actually better in the stronger cities. It was held back by
>>cities with attendance in the 5,000 range.
>
>True. While the best-attended MLS teams don't get nearly the numbers that
>the best-attended NASL teams did, the worst-attended MLS teams get much more
>than the 4-5,000 that the worst-attended NASL teams got. But really, there
>weren't more than a few teams that truly got great numbers in the NASL.
>For example, in 1980, there were four teams, New York, Seattle, Vancouver,
>and Tampa Bay, that drew better than what MLS teams get now.
Minnesota, Tulsa, and Washington also had greater attendance in 1980
than did MLS leader Columbus in 1999. 7 of 24 outdrew Columbus
(1999), and 6 of 24 underdrew Kansas City (1999).
>Another thing that has to be taken into account is that while MLS actually
>SELLS tickets to the vast majority of the attendances that it reports,
>ticket giveaways were a lot more rampant in the NASL.
True, though the drifting back from the 30,000 range to 20,000 range
in some cities may have been due to cutbacks on the special offers.
>>You're talking about the point after the decline set in. Attendance
>>in Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia was dismal. You're suggesting
>>that there was a big TV market in cities that had a hard time drawing
>>5,000 to a match (and don't have a MLS team either).
>
>Frankly, I don't see why Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia couldn't have
>drawn respectable numbers. I don't see that they were intrinsically any
>worse than any of the better cities in the league. (And really, this is
>evidenced by the drastic difference between the Tea Men's attendances and
>the Revolution's. I don't think things have changed THAT much since 1980.)
The best attendance was in cities without a MLB team or without a long
MLB tradition. It could be promoted as the cities major league sport,
rather than as an alternative to baseball.
1. NY: exceptional because of its size;
2. Tampa; 3. Vancouver; no MLB.
4. Seattle (Mariners started in 1977, didn't hit 70 wins until 1982)
5. Washington; 6. Tulsa; no MLB;
7. Minnesota (Twins - mid-division at best);
8. Toronto (Blue Jays match Mariner's record);
9. Ft.Lauderdale-Miami (no MLB);
10. San Jose != San Francisco, even when they were the Golden Bay
Earthquakes. Oakland lasted one NASL season before moving to
Edmonton.
11-14. San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, long standing
baseball traditions.
15-16. Edmonton and Portland (no MLB, and relatively small markets).
Below this attendance was less than 10,000 per match:
Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, California (Orange County), Boston,
Philadelphia (MLB). Memphis and Rochestor (no MLB - but small
markets).
>I can only conclude that many NASL teams were run with an incompetence that
>MLS can only imagine.
Perhaps it is easier to market the Cosmos coming to town when there is
no risk of the Yankees or Dodgers coming to town the week after.
>>After the decline had set in.
>
>Well, I was going with "three years before the end" in my analysis.
Do you notice that the A-League and D-3 are starting to lose teams?
Will MLS have to step in and run them as a formal minor league system?
>>In 1980, NASL had teams everywhere that the MLS does except Columbus
>>and Kansas City, and had other large markets that had drawn 20,000+
>>attendance per match (Twin Cities, Seattle, and San Diego).
>
>Substitute "Tulsa" for "San Diego." The Sockers never drew that well.
Tulsa is not a large market. You're correct that the Socker's peak
year barely topped the MLS average.
>>In 2000, Seattle is the #12 market (and would be the 8th best market
>>for MLS). Looking at the other cities, perhaps it has pushed past
>>Cleveland in the past two decades (other markets of somewhat smaller
>>size are Tampa-St.Petersburg, Phoenix, Miami-Ft.Lauderdale, and Denver
>>which have been growing as fast or faster than Seattle. Twin Cities
>>are #14, and might have been a couple of spots higher in 1980.
>
>However, compared to LA, Philly, and Detroit in 1980, these were all secon-
>dary markets and not as important.
NASL had teams in Philadelphia and Detroit in 1980.
>>In 1980, NASL was also in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston,
>>Seattle, and Minneapolis-St.Paul (i.e. they had teams in the the top
>>14 2000 markets).
>
>But how many of those teams in big markets were weak? The big-market teams
>that were gone by the end of the 1981 season (Atlanta, California, Dallas,
>Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New England, Philadelphia, and Washington) were
>almost exclusively in the bottom half of the league in attendance in 1980.
>The only exceptions were Washington (#6) and Los Angeles (#12). I mean,
>having teams in big markets is nice. Having teams in big markets that aren't
>circling the drain are even better.
Now all we have to figure out is whether it is better to have no team
in a top market, or have a marketing flop in a top market.
>>... and they have since crawled back upward to about 75% of the best
>>Tornado attendance.
>
>But I would argue that the Tornado's attendances in 1976 and 1977 were so
>unlike the attendances in their other 13 seasons that you can't consider
>them to be representative of the Tornado's attendance.
Most of these were pre-Cosmos era. Dallas led a 9-team MLS in
attendance in 1973 with 7,500.
Stan collins
> >The Tornado's attendance zenith was an average of 16,511 per game in 1977.
> >The Burn's drew 16,011 per game in 1996. Technically, you're right, but...
> >Even beyond that, however, the Burn's attendance has been much more robust
> >than the Tornado's. Other than 1976 and 1977, the Tornado drew four-figure
> >attendances every year over their 15 year existence. Their final season,
> >1981, they drew 4,670 per game. By contrast, the Burn has drawn over
> >10,000 per game every season except 1997, when they drew 9,678 per game.
> ... and they have since crawled back upward to about 75% of the best
> Tornado attendance.
But that shows you how empty that stat is. The Tornado were nowhere
near the franchise best attendance for most of their existence. Most of
the time, they did well to beat 60% of their best year. If the Burn are
on a steadier upward trend and getting to 75%, I'll take that as pretty
substantive evidence that Burn attendance is stronger than Tornado
attendance was.
The Tornado and Burn are the poster child for the difference between the
NASL's 'flameout' and MLS's smaller but steadier attendances.
Stan collins
Stan collins
> In article <8ia68p$b46$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >On 14 Jun 2000 07:52:06 GMT, dus...@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
> >wrote:
> Frankly, I don't see why Houston, Boston, and Philadelphia couldn't have
> drawn respectable numbers. I don't see that they were intrinsically any
> worse than any of the better cities in the league. (And really, this is
> evidenced by the drastic difference between the Tea Men's attendances and
> the Revolution's. I don't think things have changed THAT much since 1980.)
>
> I can only conclude that many NASL teams were run with an incompetence that
> MLS can only imagine.
And this was the NASL's fault. the biggest mistake that league ever
made was charging so little ($25,000 early on, $75,000 later) for a
team. Not for the revenue loss, as that might have been significant but
probably not enough to turn things around by itself. Rather, it was for
two reasons:
1. The imbalance of supply and demand for expansion teams meant the
NASL got more expansion teams (up to 8 in a single season) than they
could possibly have handled well.
2. The frivolity with which one could get into the league invariably
led to frivolity with which one could operate the teams, and frivolity
with which one could get out of the league. You just weren't losing
anything, because you had no great asset to defend. The owners were
never deeply invested the way current MLS investors are.
> And most people connected with MLS would tell you that they'd like to be in
> Philadelphia and Detroit and Houston and Seattle. However, I would argue
> that it would be worse for MLS to rush into Philly, sign a bad stadium deal,
> and settle for an investor-operator who wasn't committed to the league or
> wouldn't spend the money to market the team properly, than it would be for
> MLS to not be there.
This is the lesson MLS has learned. MLS's procrastination on further
expansion has been a decidedly good thing. And not for BS 'dilution of
talent' reasons.
Stan collins