I think Dempsey went to Europe on that whole, "I got to prove myself on the big stage" like so many Euro basketball players come to the NBA (20% of the current NBA are foreign born players)..

However, while he played great, he by Euro standards didn't necessarily prove anything other than what was already known, he is a pretty great footballer. That being said, that's why I think he came back to play in the US. USMNT is getting increasingly popular here, so might as well settle in a way which will make it easier to focus on playing for the Americans and an American audience. If you're by and large going to have a relatively mediocre career, why not do it somewhere where mediocrity is more subtly appreciated? Hence return to US. In Europe, fizzle out. Play the same way in America? Be a star! Its the David Beckham model for late career success. In !@#$%! terms, Kramer in the dojo? Maybe. But its his career. What is the most surprising is that he didn't go to Houston which is (a) the second best MLS team next to Galaxy and (b) essentially hometown for him. Going to Seattle if anything shows how serious Dempsey is about playing for the MLS, it wasn't just a homecoming, its a career move.

traded for the unearthed corpse of paul scholes


wow, the chickens coming home to roost! (in a good way). that's *great* news for the mls.

Great for the US too!

I think he made the right decision. He could've carried on in Europe but, echoing Suchfriends' point, the competition here is now so intense that unless you're among the top tier in your position in the world, you'll always be just another very good player. Good luck to him and, as has already been said, a great move for the MLS.

I only hope being closer to home doesn't inspire him to revive his musical interests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Di8QT98Zk

now if they only eliminate this stupid "conference" shit and normalize the season and competition format we'll be on to something one can reasonably follow.

They're trying to be more like American sports which have two competing Conferences, be it NBA, NFL, or MLB. What the Conference effect does for American sports is it creates instant rivalries. Inter-Conference rivalries develop as teams prepare for the inevitability of playing against each other for the championship. A lot of MLB fans are actually PISSED about the increase of inter-league play between the AL and NL, they say its watering down the Wold Series which used to be more exciting because inter-league teams traditionally only met for the trophy. In the NFL and NBA, inter-conference teams to play against each other, in NBA every team plays against every team, but in the NFL they rotate the schedules and some inter-conference teams don't play each other for years. It makes the potentiality of meeting in the Championship a bit MORE excited, so for an American audience have competing conferences makes sport more followable, in the sense that it keeps rivalries more obvious.

i don't know or care about other sports, but i thought these "conferences" had to do with the size of the country and the time and expense it took to travel before airline deregulation.

these days air travel is a non-issue, but there is an established tradition in those other sports which is harder to break. borrowing those limitations from other sports to make it "palatable for americans" seems silly, just like the old "shootouts" at the end of a game when there was a tie.

right now the mls format is an incomprehensible clusterfuck where after pointless "conference" rivalry come the playoffs which negate all the hard work of a season. ugh! and until recently, a team from one conference could win the opposite conference. simply absurd.

other countries have this "cup" format parallel to the regular season , and are more open in that they allow other teams (FA cup, dfb pokal, copa del rey, etc).

maybe what they should do here is 2 tournaments: one with a single table that's won by points, another with a cup format that would allow other teams (e.g. 2nd division, us pro or whatever the fuck they call it) to get a chance to "kill giants".

and what would *really* spice things up instead of artificial "conference" rivalries is having actual promotion and relegation from and to a lesser league-- but hey, one step at a time, rome wasn't built in a day, so i'm willing to give it a couple of decades to get things right. it's definitely harder to build a following from the top-down instead of promoting from the grassroots.

Yes, that is the historiographical version, however after the Conference format stuck around, Americans got used to it, and its the expected format now. As you say, its not logistically needed..


That is true, but silliness is very much a part of American sport.







In the Conference system, all that hard work in the season is what carried you into the playoffs and also determine tournament seeding, so its not entirely wasted.


Now see that is actually more complicated. I don't like Euro league football because its a bit more complicated to keep up with current standings, future match-ups, and inter-team histories. The advantage of the Conference system is all that is self-contained, and that is in part why American sports has kept that system in place, post-technology advances. It, at least to me, seems simpler to keep up with things like standings and rivalries, especially across past seasons to monitor development or decline issues.


But that is the thing, Conference rivalries aren't artificial, they're built on the reality of the experience of teams playing against each other routinely during season-play. Granted, its not as spicy a rivalry as play-off and championship rivalries, but for example, in the NFL the Ravens and Steelers have one of the biggest rivalries of any teams in the world. It has evolved into a heated play-off rivalry, yes, but its origins are in those two slugfests a year they call season games.

I agree, but lets remember that elite spectator sports are an entertainment market first and foremost. We fans of sport may talk of talent and player skill, but lets be honest, if there isn't a marketable audience its a tree falling in the woods you know? The NBA before the 80s was a shit-kicking league, now its world-class and celebrity with an annual audience of 250,000,000 people. That is quite the evolution in 30 years. The sport has thrived and advanced in accompany with the increase in marketability and audience share. So essentially MLS will have to become more watched and supported before it can become more talented from the bottom-up. Keep bringing in top talent and increase the market-share, then as more fans come in THAT process will begin to build a farm system through colleges and amateur leagues (which are quite prevalent here in the US, albeit completely under the radar). What made the NBA so fucking great? It was kids on the black top in the streets playing ball dreaming of being the next Dr J or the next Magic Johnson, or the next MJ, or the next Kobe, or the next Lebron. As the elite talent becomes more marketed to a wider audience, it inspires kids and athletes to up their game. Now in the 2000s the NBA is better than ever in regards to talent and sport, and that is because the best players in the current league grew up their entire lives playing basketball aiming for that elite status. Give the MLS time, but with the USMNT becoming so much more popular and noticed by Americans, kids will start to want to be Clint Dempsey, Landon Donovan or Tim Howard as much as they want to Kevin Durant or Adrian Peterson ;)

i don't have the time right now to answer point by point to everything you said, but just to add that, in the words of a former mls player, ""It doesn't matter what place you finish, as long as you just get into the playoffs". The so-called "seeding" isn't worth shit:

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2b824Z8Qu

He proposes a different system of playoffs; I'd go further and say "fuck the playoffs". Do one comprehensive national league where everyone plays everyone home and away, and do one elimination cup.

It's really simple.

ps- here a good article that looks at all sides of the issue and ends in support of the status quo but also recognizes its limitations

http://intothesix.com/2013/04/09/mls...-probably-not/

basically, it's obvious we're dealing with a temporary solution

I see your points, but unfortunately MLS is in an American audience, and Americans are used to and familiar with things like seeding, play-offs, divisions, and conferences. Further, while seeding might not necessarily be that impacting now, MLS is only a few decades old, give it a minute. In the 1980s there were really only 5 great NBA teams, and the rest were fodder. Now? Seeding is everything. If MLS continues to advance and develop, those things like seeding or division rivalries might start to bear more classically American weight. MLS wants to be American soccer, not necessarily European football, and I can dig it, sort of, at least because of my being raised on similar formatted leagues like the NFL and the NBA. It helps make MLS more readily accessible, and that above all else is critical for MLS to grow. Nobody is fooling themselves, MLS doesn't think it can lure away European and South American audiences from those leagues, but perhaps a lot of casual American Euro-futbol fans might switch back as MLS gains weight. I'm not sure the restructuring you mentioned will do that, even if it will get MLS more aligned with the more elite style of leagues elsewhere..

Also that was a genius article which more or less agreed with both of us, in that the things you've suggested might work for MLS, but the things I've talked about are just the obvious realities of the American sports market, particularly where MLS is lucky to rank third in live audience. That MLS in live-audience ranked above the NBA is misleading, there are over 1200 games played total each year, so the NBA PURPOSEFULLY has smaller seating than it could to keep the market moving. Following the averages about 21,000,000 attend a live NBA game at some point during the season. MLS has a way to go to make that

thing is, the "american audience" who watches MLS is the "american audience" that follows the premier league, la liga, or the mexican whatever it's called. i don't know ratings but i'd bet you fox soccer which broadcasts the prem gets higher ratings than the mls.

edit: look here:
Fox's taped British soccer tops MLS title game

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UgAdY1POm14

i think what the mls is doing is wrong in trying to "convert" non-"soccer" watchers into watchers. which isn't going to happen much.

so it half-asses in both directions.

look at this commissioner dude-- basically he wants nfl audiences to start watching mls. because he's an ex-nfl guy.

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2013/04/2...model-instead/

he's going to lose the people who love the sport while he tries to convince those who don't love it to start watching.

like, clearly he doesn't love it the way he loves american football. in other words, he's a fucking suit in this environment.

(okay, but seriously, no-- he's done a lot of good, but he's not delivering us to the promised land, we're just wandering the desert at the moment)

eh! i gotta get my german tv so i can watch serious business.

But that is the catch. MLS isn't stupid. They know they can't necessarily lure those Premier league fans away, it'd be like the Turkish Basketball leagues trying to lure away NBA fans. NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. The way MLS can continue to grow is to build a new and growing fanbase among American sport fans, and so it follows American friendly formats which Americans can more readily comprehend. If its too complicated, it might not draw in a casual audience. I think that as demonstrated by the increasing awareness and popularity of USMNT among Americans who are not traditional or elite soccer fans, there is potential for conversion by a casual American audience. Sport in America can admittedly be more shallow than sport in Europe, but it is what it is, and that casual and shallow market is what MLS has to tap into. If it can't convert Americans to become casual fans, it will never rise like the NBA did. Look at the evolution of NBA in America. In the early 1970s NBA was probably seen as ten times the laughing stock the MLS is today, even in the mid-1980s as it became increasingly celebrity, there was a serious lack of talent. As the NBA continued to capture the attention of casual America, it grew. The NBA didn't lure in a lot of fans of just basketball, because there weren't really that many aside from those who played basketball. However, within 20 years of the mid-1970s, NBA became part of America's collective consciousness. People who have NO IDEA about ANYTHING in basketball recognized Michael Jordan or later Kobe Bryant or now Lebron James. THAT is the potential which the MLS is trying to build, to become what American sports really is, a sport for a casual audience. Why is the NFL so damned successful? Its not he fanaticos like Rob, its the casual fans who watch a few games a season, who might tailgate at one game in their home town. Who might front run or fair-weather it up and buy some merchandise from NFL.com. Who might watch a few minutes of some games on Monday night after work. That is where the NBA has climbed, and what MLS can hope for. Diehard soccer fans? Probably will never be interested, if anything, as MLS gets more popular diehards might lose interest because now it has a novelty factor that will diminish with popularity.

i'd catch mls in the afternoon after watching the prem in the morning if it was worth it.

the "new and growing audience" isn't going to be nba transplants, it's little kids who play and worship messi and cristiano ronaldo.

people are always going to get rah rah rah behind the national team regardless. patriotism doesn't equal love of a sport.

the diehard fans aren't hipsters looking to be "alternative". they just want a good show that's worth watching. so a better mls is only going to make it more attractive. right now, they turn to the premier league because that's where you get a decent show. (and then there's the people without meaning in their lives who need to draw their identity from tribal affiliation, but that's another story.)

No, patriotism doesn't equate with love of sport, but it does equal exposure to a national audience, who may discover they have a liking for soccer whereas previously they never gave it a chance or even noticed. That, and American sports are weird like that. Casual fans pop up all the time, if the culture spreads wide enough to catch people in the drag net. Again, diehard fans are going to be way to picky to follow MLS for several years to come, in the meanwhile MLS wants to build up the casual audience. That is how American sports make the most of their money.

eh, if that's what sells to the american masses then more power to them.

Clearly no love for the beautiful game from this guy

he claims to like west ham! did you know? (i'm sure you did)

but that's just for pr. he's really a basketball guy though.

compare the expression:

Haha, yeah, which in a way kind of proves my original point.

Matt Damon's meant to be a fan too. God knows how that happened. Dave Grohl too, apparently. :confused:

Yes he does, he knows more about basketball than Bill Clinton knows about women ;)

I agree. However, if the MLS can parallel the development of the NBA then it will work it out within ten years for everybody. The quality of play and players will improve to a level which fanaticos like you can somewhat enjoy, and yet the culture of MLS in America to fill up stadiums, claim a portion of the TV viewer-share, and sell some merchandise. After all, MLB is in SIGNIFICANT decline. Some dare said baseball won't exist in ten years.

well, baseball will exist forever, just maybe not at the insane financial heights of today, but it's not going to suddenly vanish. i mean, kids will still play baseball in parks, schools will field teams-- just look at mexico.

if that's the case then MLS should "claim" the summer-- february through september (enough to cram a full season *if* people don't quit for international matches).

as for MLS growth: the tv, the merchandise, the american culture-- maybe it will pan out or maybe it will plateau and never take off and become a zombie league. of course it's a gamble---it's a gamble any which way, anyway... so-- whatever works. hey, if the mls got your attention this way then maybe it will work with other people.

me, i think pro "soccer" gets the greatest attention not from disappointed baseball crowds but from those kids who play in elementary and high school and the streets, and then they look at the tv. the risk of course is that those people will go straight into watching the prem (as i believe it's happening) instead of becoming mls fans. i'm saying risk of course-- i am not equipped to see the future. maybe they'll watch everything they can get their eyes on. but here's an example: in el salvador (i know this first-hand) the whole country is split between real madrid and barcelona fandom. true story.

--

ps- here some journalistic confirmation so you see i'm not making this up:

http://www.vagabondjourney.com/socce...ona-or-madrid/

ps- i may be wrong, but i think the real competition is not baseball or the nfl-- it's THIS

I'm in no position to know how significant this is, but the unique problem facing MLS (compared with the NFL, MLB and NBA) is that everyone knows the best teams and players are all playing elsewhere. When you watch a Superbowl or the NBA finals, you know, probably without even thinking about it, that you're watching the very pinnacle of those sports. That has to have a major impact on their overall popularity. For all your optimism about the MLS, the problem is its very infrastructure (mostly in terms of salary caps) means it will never be able to attract the best players and its geographical distance means that it'll never be playing against them (at club level anyway). So the unique problem facing the MLS is how does it sell itself to a mainstream audience used to thinking of its team sports as representing the very highest level possible?

That's true, but I was also talking about the development of the NBA in the late 1970s early 1980s when it wasn't that world class talent and arena wise. However you're right, when the NBA began to make a name for itself in the 1980s, it wasn't like there were any other basketball leagues to compete for audience share. I just really don't see MLS luring away Euro fans one way or the other, so I suppose they have to work with what they can..


Perhaps that's just it. If MLS can't lure Euro talent (like they tried to have with the Beckham deal years ago) in droves they probably won't lure Euro fans. So if they can't elevate their talent to the highest level possible, maybe the selling point becomes developing the culture. If the stadiums are first-class, the teams at least talented and professional, and people are selling out stadiums and beginning to create a buzz (all of which are going on in MLS currently) then that might just have to be enough. Maybe the MLS will have to start to kind of claim itself as uniquely American soccer, having all the amenities that Americans are accustomed to for their spectator sport experience, but not necessarily pretend to be the highest possible level in the world, just highest within themselves. It sounds silly, I know, but again, sometimes American sport is silly.

Looks like the Bale insanity is going to happen.

Anyway,

Controversy over the authenticity of a video of Balotelli playing the piano:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsC_7-67soE

right. and this being a former british colony, it gravitates towards the premier league.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-55728982.html

or to put it more bluntly:





http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-european.html

(the writer finishes by begging people to spend some money on the mls-- but he doesn't get it.)


that's the thing, the "euro fans" (as you call them/us) know that one washed out star does not a league make. it's not about gimmicks or euro-anything. it's about quality and competition and merit and (yes) a long, world-wide tradition.

what "they" (we) need is a respectable league that makes sense and matters internationally-- not in being the "greatest" league, just a decent one with sensible rules and respect for the game instead of weird shootouts (thankfully gone) and bending over for the nfl. and that's what we're not getting. so we don't watch (at least i don't watch).

i'd love to have a local team that i can follow, but there's simply nothing.


like demonyo, he's a little gay for pirlo as well.

i thought pirlo was going sing or something!

Yeah, Pirlo's a class act. Guess he's been back on the spotlight ever since that panenka. But you know, there's a whole school behind Pirlo.

Growing up I idolatrized Rui Costa, so I was lucky to get to know it.



It's actually sad when you think about it and look at modern football.

That's why the MLS has to expand to a proper pro-rel inter-league system. There isn't a future in huge franchise teams with 40k+ stadiums. They tried the imported talent and mega-club route before (NY Cosmos?) More divisions means more teams that'll inevitably have to target smaller communities for their fanbase. That could be where those districts within cities that have a stronger football/soccer following (either because of their ethnic make up or whatever) could really come into their own. Moving scouting away from the colleges and the has-beens' agents and into the local parks where it belongs. That's where you'll find the little genius who a community, and maybe the country overall, can really get behind. It just takes the patience to start from the bottom and build from there. Yuma FC. That's a team I'd want to support.

Do you know something we don't?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...tenham-hotspur

Not really, just the feeling I've been getting from hearing people that do know something, knowing Real Madrid and knowing Florentino.

Spur's owner Daniel Levy has a reputation for taking transfers to the wire. It makes sense in terms of squeezing the most money out of a sale but if Bale is set on going and the deal is pretty much sealed he could end up with a massive cash injection but, as the transfer window starts to close, little time to spend it.

Speaking of tottenham and the prem league taking Mls interest away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KeG_i8CWE8

haaa haaa haaa haaaa

i watched it and then i watched it again.

damn, i need a good cable package. they're switching everything around. pain in the ass.

so what is "fuck sucker" gonna be showing now???

--

ps-- ribery is up w/ messi and cronaldo for "best uefa player". ha ha ha . YEAH! he gets the biggest balls award.

That is what happens as teams and leagues get more popular, the TV contracts switch up as bigger fish start to see a bigger pie to swoop on. Here in LA the Lakers away games were on local TV for the past THIRTY YEARS! It was revolutionary when they started doing it, and it made Lakers a community team. EVERYWHERE you went in Los Angeles on any given away game night, a TV had the Laker game on, good or bad game. Last year the switched it on some multi-BILLION $ deal to strictly cable. LA folks were pissed because it was a new channel that like 800,000 people didn't even have access too! Same thing with the Dodgers. Those games used to be on Fox, but now they've been largely moved to FoxSports. Univision is the final frontier, they broadcast all the cable USMNT, Mexico, and other cable futbol matches on UniMas or sometimes KMEX34 (if its primetime) but alas, probably soon they will go all cable because Univision has a cable channel too!!

Yeah, I saw that last year with Modric. I'm sure the word jew is being thrown around a lot in the oficinas.

It's a problem, there's not that much talent available and Tottenham is not in a particularly good position to lure big names. The only certainty is that with that kind of cash flow whoever they get is going to be hyperinflated.

I'm not that convinced, but there are rumours that there's gonna be other players involved in the transfer.

Chelsea-Mad should be a good one tonight. I'll probably leave it to those of you in nearby timezones, though.

Fellaini to Man Utd?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...united-everton