Tuesday's Column: MLS Needs a Lesson in Scheduling
After spending the weekend watching as a fan (I was on vacation last week and skipped a home Galaxy game for the first time this season) rather than a journalist, it's clear to me that if there are many more repeats of last weekend and I didn't get paid to do this I would have to question my devotion to the league.
Pretty dismal games and few recognizable stars (and in the case of Toronto few recognizable players period) frankly led to the integrity of the competition being undermined. All because MLS insists upon playing on FIFA designated match days.
It's not fair to teams, fans or players - and no one I've talked to believes what MLS is doing is helping the sport in this country.
So, I know it's an old saw, but I took another swing at the issue in Tuesday's column. If nothing else, it will continue to drive home to the MLS suits how important the issue is and how stupid they look and are making the sport look.
What do you think? Vent, discuss or comment below.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
About 100 Percent Soccer
Sportswriter Nick Green has written the 100 Percent Soccer column since 2005 for the Daily News, Daily Breeze and other Los Angeles area newspapers. The blog of the same name began in 2007. A native of England, he began writing about soccer in the mid-1980s and in 2000 permanently exchanged a seat in the stands for one in the press box. He lives six miles from Carson's Home Depot Center, home of the Los Angeles Galaxy, Chivas USA and the training headquarters for U.S. Soccer and is married to a long-suffering soccer widow. Join Nick on FaceBook and follow him on Twitter.
It's unclear from your story what the official or unofficial story is here.
It seems like you think we've heard it before in some more official story, although I haven't seen a story run on it in the Daily News. Is the explanation that they have tried to prioritize a consistent Thursday/Saturday schedule and that they will lose stadium access (presumably to football) if the season runs too long because they skip weeks for FIFA dates? You imply that in a couple of places, but only indirectly when you suggest changes like a shorter schedule. As to the former issue, is this at all a TV problem (ESPN contract requiring Thursday night and Saturday night games or something like that)? If so, that sounds like there is a TV solution (demanding quality product or substituting the FIFA games for the MLS games on those dates). As to the latter issue, aren't there enough soccer only stadiums now that they can schedule home games at the end of the season in only those stadiums?
Nick replies: Here's the official MLS view To kick things off, here's from Garber's blog. Hope that helps fill in some (apparent) blanks in the column.
FIFA dates should be honored. That being said...
The other problem with scheduling goes with the overloading of last year's best teams with too many competitions. The top 4 teams from last year (DC, NE, Houston, CUSA) have only just recently come close to their last year's table position.
Why does MLS feel that they need to re-invent the wheel? If we copy the current world model, we can give everyone something to play for.
1. Single table gives 28 home/home games (in '09 and 30 home/home games in '09) and allows for honoring FIFA dates and scheduling, if necessary, mid-week games.
2. CONCACAF Champions League (CCC) = UEFA Champ League
3. SuperLiga (SL) = UEFA Cup
4. Open Cup = FA Cup
MLS should send the top 3 + Open Cup winner to CCC.
MLS (and Mexico as well) should send teams 4-7 to SL (and it could be expanded to adding additional teams from CONCACAF as long as it is not their CCC teams, including top finishers from USL).
MLS teams at the bottom of the table can make Open Cup a priority as a way to earn a CCC spot.
This gives:
1. The top half of the table some trophy to play for in the following season (which makes the regular season's games as important as fighting for our current system's playoff spot) in a home/home format (giving at least 1 additional home game revenue opportunity).
2. Exposure for more than just the top 4 teams (which could help when trying to sign foreign players from the CONCACAF or South America... Ever wonder why Brazilians would leave Brazil to go to Russia??? Uh, ... for the chance to play in Champion's League!!!!)
3. Increase in revenue (through TV rights and sponsorship for different markets in multiple tournaments) for more than just the top 4 teams
4. more teams (7-8) the chance to have their fans spend additional money on the tournaments (instead of just 4 teams being removed earlier in tournaments due to fixture congestion)
*********************
In a perfect world the MLS Cup would be moved to the beginning of next year's season, and limited to the top 2 (which allows scheduling for home/home game for the teams involved = money for each team) instead of hoping that fans will travel to whatever locale MLS selects.
Nick replies: Some excellent ideas here. Don Garber, move over........
Pocketkings put more good ideas into 300-400 words than I've seen in a long time.
Garber and his friends refuse to acknowledge that they are destroying their own league not just with this, but also by pricing regular fans out of the "crown jewel" stadiums. Do they understand that the league can die? Do they remember the NASL?
Last weekend did more damage to the fan base of MLS as a professional league than any single thing I've seen in years. We're in the middle of a very close contest for playoff spots, and the teams with the best rosters are penalized because their players get taken out for international duty? Why should I care what happens after that?
Think about what would happen if the Dream Team got pulled out of the NBA with three weeks left in the season, or the Olympic tournament pulled players out of the NHL in the final month. Sports fans would watch something else.
A growing number of American soccer fans have given up on MLS, and are watching the Premier League on cable, or the Spanish league. I can't say that I blame them. It's cheaper and better.
You don't need to go to a single table to get teams to play each other once at home and once on the road. Expansion will take care of that. MLS now has 14 teams. In two years, it will have 16. It plans on having 18. With an 18-team league, there's no way MLS can keep the current scheduling format w/o stretching the regular season to eight, nine or even 10 months (it's already seven months, not counting playoffs).
A single table -- in, of and by itself -- accomplishes nothing.
After limiting teams to one home and one road game against each other, get rid of SuperLiga. Who needs it? The games don't draw that well, anyway. MLS and SUM must be losing more money on this deal than they let on.
One more thing:
Ever wonder why Brazilians would leave Brazil to go to Russia??? Uh, ... for the chance to play in Champion's League!!!!)
No, they leave because the Russian economy is far better off than the Brazilian economy is, and the players can get far more money. I know of Americans who play men's volleyball and women's basketball professionally in Russia -- and they're paid far more than the Olympic Committee or the WNBA could ever pay them.
Single table does accomplish something... it ensures that the top 3 teams would go to CCC... it ensures that the next 4 teams go to Superliga (which can grow into a great competition, if handled properly) ...
Being the "best in your conference" could become 4th or 5th in a single table. If that means that my team doesn't make it, its better than squeaking into the playoffs because our geographical neighbors are any better either!! Do you want quality sides to be judged by their quality or their location?
Brazilians don't only play in Brazil. The best go to Italy, Spain, England, Portugal, France, etc... etc...,
These are all great leagues with good pay. The point I was making is that a Brazilian (or Argentinian for that matter) that doesn't get picked to go to these warmer locations, but still wants to be on a championship team and a shot at playing against the best in the world, would not stay in his own domestic league, but brave the polar opposite climate of Russia in order to get that chance (sometimes it's not only the money, ya know.)
One more thing:
"I know of Americans who play men's volleyball and women's basketball professionally in Russia -- and they're paid far more than the Olympic Committee or the WNBA could ever pay them."
Are they playing there because they love the game and they want the chance to compete, or just for the paycheck?? It might be both, but it certainly isn't just because of the money!
If I could earn equal pay teaching in the US vs Russia. Then I would stay here, but if Russia was going to pay me more money to go, then I would consider it. But I can guarantee that I'm not going to move to Russia to break rocks (or some other lousy job) for more money.... because I love teaching!
And as far as losing money with these tournaments... I'm sure MLS lost tons of money in the beginning. Not very many things are extremely profitable when you first start them up!?!
Pocket Kings, there's a big difference between MLS losing money (as expected) in the early years and a more stable MLS promoting a tournament (SuperLiga) that doesn't do the league any good, in the long run.
As far as a single table goes, your theory only works if the league assigns the top three to the CONCACAF Champions' League, etc. Nothing is stopping the league from holding a playoff for CCC positions.
Besides, you're not going to see any substantial change in the nature of scheduling or league structure until Beckham retires after 2011. MLS wants to promote the dickens out of him and will sacrifice just about anything else to do so.
Joseph D'Hippolito
It was my understanding that SuperLiga was MLS's attempt to create a venue where FMF teams compete with MLS in order to stimulate a new fan base. I'm not saying that Mexican-American citizens (whether they are 1st or 5th generation fans of their FMF team) are just going to ignore them and jump on the MLS bandwagon exclusively.
But the idea is that they tap into those fans that long to return to a stadium and watch live futbol. The fans that miss the atmosphere. The fans that want to bring a little bit of home (or remember the good old days that their parents talked about) into their "own backyard." So, I guess we need to look at attendance in the next few years to see if we are getting some fans crossing over from FMF to MLS (or at least watching both).
Whether that is accomplished and becomes something good for MLS in the long run, is something we are going to have to wait to see. But it also gives an opportunity for critics to compare teams from the two leagues in order to promote the ability/strength of MLS.
Don't we look at the teams from UEFA Champion's League and how they do to get a gauge on the strengths of the leagues compared to each other. For instance, when you mention the great leagues, you say in the same breath England, Spain, Italy (Germany, etc.) because of their strength of their representing teams in the Champs League. One rarely mentions the Dutch, Portuguese, or Russian leagues with the previously mentioned groups (maybe individual teams, but not the entire league). Well, the CCC is going to be our EUFA Champs League. And I would like to see Superliga as our UFEA Cup.
Joseph... I respect your opinion, but I think that in our current stability of the league (due in part to Garber's work), it is time for MLS to have a commissioner can lead us in line with the other leagues of the world instead of the NFL model.
Now, I'm not saying that we should make all these changes (including relegation/promotion) all at once. But MLS should set goals, not only for the league, but for the fans.
For example:
If MLS said that we would begin promotion/relegation in 10 years (2019), it would give owners that are skittish about it time to sell. It would allow USL teams to raise the revenue to join this new set up (maybe each USL team that joins pays MLS original owners a $5 million fee for partial parity).
**********************************************
You also said, "Nothing is stopping the league from holding a playoff for CCC positions."
- Except trying to squeeze some extra playoff games into their already "congested" schedule. Isn't that their reason for holding MLS games during the FIFA International Break? (Which is another thing the single table accomplishes - limits the regular seasons games). In fact, if MLS would have gone to a single table this year, there would have been 26 home/home games, freeing up time for international breaks! And the teams that competed in OPEN CUP/SUPERLIGA/CCC might have caught a few more days break, or picked up a few less injuries!?!
There are tons of things that can occur... but it's time to start thinking about it.
ps... are you the same Joseph D'Hippolito that writes for FrontPageMag about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict????