Also on the cut over there is our old friend Duane. So I sauntered over to 24th Minute to see what was up and saw this:
As someone that believes in the strength of the sport right now and in the importance of being aggressive in expanding the MLS brand, I fall on the side of the players. The restraints need to start to come off. Maybe not all of them at once, but there comes a time when the league needs to take the training wheels off. Now is as good as anytime, especially with a World Cup on the horizon.
Now this is not a BA Duane Strange moment, but his words did remind me of what MLS Players Union director Bob Foose said a month or so ago:
"MLS has made tremendous strides in its first 14 seasons," said Bob Foose, executive director of the MLS Players Union. "We believe it's now time to take the training wheels off and give MLS clubs the freedom to truly compete against each other and other clubs outside of the league in a manner that is consistent with what occurs everywhere else in the world."
The emphasis is mine. The union is pushing the idea that single entity is something that was great in the beginning to get the league started, but now that it's financially successful, it can be discarded. And there's a lot of people out there like Duane who tend to agree (or at least regurgitate similar language), so I'm not going to savage him alone for it in this post.
At the same time, I think Foose's view is totally wrong. Bill Archer addressed the topic before Christmas, focusing on the "single-entity-just-isn't-going-away" perspective:
I'm sorry to disagree with Foose but the league is not "at a crossroads". Rather, it sees itself as on a very nice, straight, long road. MLS is headed in one direction and has no intention of turning off any time soon.
Now if the Union wants to talk about more money, that's OK. The owners expect that and are undoubtedly prepared to go there. But the union wants to get there by changing the nature of the league, and the league wants to get there by changing the salary structure.
Ordinarily, I'd end the post here, say thanks for the page views, and move on. But I think I can add a little more to the discussion. So here it is:
MLS LLC is not training wheels. It's a brilliantly conceived business entity built with decades of pro sports litigation in the USA in mind. It's something that the majority of people don't understand, but under the hood it's sexy as hell and built to last. It's the corporate entity version of a rotary engine or a Macintosh computer. It took the old way of doing things, looked at the problems that had plagued other leagues, and came up with an innovative, new way of dealing with those issues while retaining a ton of eccentricities that few understand.
I realize that only techno-weenies are going to spend the time sorting through all the decisions associated with Fraser vs. Major League Soccer to get an idea of how the league works, but that's the point. Based on those cases, here's a rundown of the league structure (cribbed from the cases and a comment I made to this post):
MLS LLC is a limited liability company with single taxation and partners that own it who are a mixture of corporations, partnerships and individuals. MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. At the same time, MLS contracts with owners to operate the teams it owns. These contractors retain a portion of ticket sales and other revenue, and must pay a portion of operation expenses. Contractors have a right to operate the teams they contract for and can sell a percentage of that right to other investors who may not be investors in MLS LLC. MLS "recruits the players, negotiates their salaries, pays them from league funds, and, to a large extent, determines where each of them will play". Soccer United Marketing doesn't appear to be a separate company, but is mere an activity owned by MLS, LLC, and the revenues from SUM flow to MLS LLC owners, but not necessarily to those who own a percent of an interest of the right to operate an MLS team and are not "owner-investors".
To be frank, not a lot of the general soccer community understands this or why it works in the way it does. I'll come right out and say that I probably don't either. The whole thing was designed to avoid the anti-trust litigation that had plagued the NBA and NFL, in addition to providing some sort of centralized control and discussion over salaries to avoid an NASL-esque implosion. It's an arrangement that had been contemplated and talked about by many in the sports business word, but nobody had done it on the scale that MLS did. It's that uniqueness that makes the arrangement fascinating to me.
On the topic of salaries, it forces the owners to come together and really negotiate among themselves what the league expenditures will be. It provides a mechanism beyond the salary cap for preventing a situation where one owner can come in and spend a ton of money all by his lonesome, fundamentally altering the parity structure of the league. If the salary cap or wage structure of the league is going to increase, then it's going to be done in a way that requires a large percentage of the ownership to be on board. The arrangement helps assure that when wages do go up, there's a better chance of it being in the best financial interest of the league as a whole.
A lot of fans find the second part frustrating. As much as people bitch about the absurdity of player wages elsewhere, it's pretty awesome when your owner can fundamentally shift the balance of power in a league without going through the hard, tedious work of developing players and doing things "the right way". Chelsea, Man City, the Yankees, and even to a certain extent the Cleveland Cavaliers are examples of this. MLS LLC takes that away and leaves fans frustrated by the owner/operators who just don't know how to run a soccer team. The arrangement gets called socialist, communist, conservative, fascist, any word you can think of to demonize the arrangement.
It is what it is, and it has eccentricities. Allocations, teams retaining rights to players after their contracts are up, a money trail that is outrageously opaque, owners who can operate more than one team. But you make tradeoffs - the rotary engine gets 238 HP out of just 1.3 liters of displacement, but sucks gas like a junkie; the original Mac fundamentally altered personal computing, but lacked a command line and was a nightmare to program for. And so MLS can draw 30,000 fans in Seattle, but a single owner can't just go out and sign 11 overpriced, aging international superstars to run the table. Anomalies to the way fans are used to seeing things run in a pro league abound.
Let's also not forget about the weird rules that were in place in the first years - the countdown clock, the shootout, overtime. I'm going to say that I was not on board with a lot of the on-the-field wierdery, but the fact that MLS has tried to be different and innovative on a number of levels is cool. It is interesting. The complexities and quirks testify to the fact that professional sports don't have to be organized in one way, nor played in a single, uniform manner.
I agree with Bill that MLS LLC as currently organized was never meant to be discarded, for a lot of reasons. I also think the monster that it's unleashed is pretty cool. The nerd in me doesn't want the single entity experiment to end - I want to see where it continues to grow and develop. I want the teams that get a competitive advantage by being clever and innovative in putting their rosters together to be the winners, not teams that outspent everyone else by millions of dollars. RSL beating LA in the final was awesome. It wouldn't have happened in any other professional league in the USA.
Single entity is not "training wheels." It's actually pretty cool.
-FS
20 comments:
The whole single entity concept actually is pretty neat. While I don't understand some of it, I do appreciate that it makes MLS a unique league. I'm not sure I can comment on any more of the business model/antitrust issues until after I take Business Organizations this semester. Thank you, Fake Sigi, for making me want to read 'important stuff' while I'm on my law school break.
I've always found the choice of entity decision/discussion fascinating, so I'm glad I can impart some of that nerdery to my readers.
-FS
I too like this topic. One thing I'd like to know ...
I read somewhere, brain freeze precludes my remembering the source, that MLS LLC owns 51% of each team. Would you know if this is true?
Peter -
That is not true. MLS owns the teams 100%. Operators own a right to operate the team.
-FS
The problem that I see is that most of the soccer fans in the US look at the system that the rest of the world uses and think it's perfect. If we only did what they do in England...If we only played in the winter, if we only had relegation & promotion, if we only allowed the teams to spend whatever they wanted all would be good here and the sport would grow. The problem is that the system in Europe is having it's own issues right now. One has to wonder how long it will be before one of the big teams collapses under the debt that they are carrying.
Two questions for you. I know that the players want "free agency" and want to be able to control what team they play for. Do you think there is a way to do this without jeopardizing the single entity system? One of the things that bugs me is the concept of players rights. It bothers me that a team can hold another team hostage for a player that is out of contract with the MLS especially of that player is trying to come back to the league. As a Fire fan, I think of the situation with McBride, or even the fee that we collected when we gave up the rights to Pickens. Do you think if the league were to drop this (or make a fixed fee for the transfer) the players might take this as a form of free agency and at the same time not jeopardize the single entity system?
The other is on player development. One of the things that I would love to see is a true academy system. Teams would have the opportunity to develop local talent and have a clear path to benefit the local team (be it through playing for the club or sale). I think that the strength and development of the National Team can be helped through a strong development academy within the MLS. However, I wonder if the single entity system - at least the way it is currently presented - is actually a deterrent to a strong academy system. I'm assuming that the teams, not the league, are paying for the academies. I know that teams are allowed to sign two players from their academy teams, but I wonder if the investment needed to run a strong academy is worth it for the teams in the current system. I have heard that the Fire's academy is pretty good, but at times it seems more like a local PR stunt then a true development system. Do you think that a strong developmental system can operate under the current single entity system? If not, what would need to change and do you see the MLS open to those changes? (Do they even what a strong developmental system?)
Thanks for your analysis.
Since you aren't making this a "BA Duane Strange moment," (by the way, what the hell does BA stand for?), let's keep this exchange civil, OK?
I don't disagree with your analysis that the business model that is MLS is interesting. Considering that the league itself is still not profitable, I'm not sure that I agree in its effectiveness (other than in keeping risk down, which, I agree, is not insignificant).
But you are leaving out an important factor in your analysis -- Soccer United Marketing.
SUM makes boatloads of money. I was told that TFC's share in 2008 was about $12 million USD. SUM operates separately from MLS, but all clubs are partners - that allows them to show a loss with the franchise, but actually make money on their overall operation.
So, it's disingenuous to talk about the MLS business model without talking about SUM. Reducing some central control does nothing to reduce the impact of SUM.
The other thing in which we fundamentally are opposed is in our vision of what this league can be. To me, it appears that you (and others like Archer) are satisfied with this middling status quo - a situation where the league draws flies on TV, loses young players to Europe, is reducing its role in developing American (and, yes, Canadian) talent and is becoming less competitive in CONCACAF.
Let's go back to SUM for a moment. SUM does do a great job at capturing the entirety of the soccer market in the U.S. (and there are lots of rumours that SUM Canada is not far off). That's the ceiling that is out there. Why shouldn't MLS fans want the league to aspire to something more? In your effort to tear down other's arguments, I've never seen you speak to that. Is it your position that the league is as good as it will ever be and that we should just give up and try and stay afloat?
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect the biggest factor that prevents a soccer fan in the U.S. from also being a MLS fan is a perspective that the league's play is not worth supporting.
When I, or others far more important than I, talk about "taking the training wheels off" we are referring to starting a process that allows the league to start to capture those fans by improving the overall on-the-pitch product.
I agree with you and (gasp!) Bill when you say that the owners aren't all that interested in getting rid of the current system. The current labour issues are evidence of that. What I fear is that the owners don't realize that soccer is not like other sports in Canada and the United States. The NHL, for instance, could afford to play hardball with its players because the NHL was the best hockey league in the world. Hockey players knew that and understood that they needed to be in the NHL to make the most money and to compete at the highest level possible. MLS is the, what, 38th best soccer league in the world. Its players have options that NHL players didn't. In a lot of cases they are in MLS out of a bit of a patriotic duty (or because its comforts make up for other factors that are better in Europe).
Lastly, it isn't that American and Canadian fans want the league to be "more like Europe." It's that the players want that. It’s misguided to think that they have no power n this dispute. American and Canadian soccer fans aren’t stupid. They, for the most part, aren’t going to support a league that is going backwards.
Especially if its top players are leaving.
"Lastly, it isn't that American and Canadian fans want the league to be "more like Europe." It's that the players want that."
Actually, there's a section of fans that do want that. And there's a section that won't deign to follow MLS until it resembles Europe. And a section that will hold their breaths until they turn blue hoping for promotion and relegation.
"American and Canadian soccer fans aren’t stupid."
Most of the ones with internet access are.
"They, for the most part, aren’t going to support a league that is going backwards."
And then they'll find some other reason not to support it, even if they do see it going forwards.
As for who "owns" what - the operating rights are what has the value, they're what get bought and sold. MLS, ultimately, has control over the disposition of its franchises, so, in that respect, they "own" each of their teams, at the end of the day. Just not in a stock percentage way of thinking, which is the way most tend to think of it. And the 51%/49% thing got put out there somewhere and some people just accept it as gospel, when it's not.
MLS has control, at the end of the day, over what happens to its franchises. But the operating rights (what we would normally think of as "the club" or "the franchise") are what have the value ($33M in DC United's case, for example).
It always baffles me that people want American soccer to be run more like European soccer, which is a den of iniquity, a web of deceit, a cancerous house of cards propping up an evil empire. And that's just Chelsea!
Why on earth would you want to emulate a system that is still basically organized the same way as it was when King Edward died? Promotion and relegation is a marvelous idea, a truly great concept that makes almost every game important. It is also, a complete anachronism that has, in my opinion, doomed european soccer to a state where only a few teams in each league have any shot at winning a title. All the european leagues with their club first, league second approaches are living in the past.
Thanks for this. My goal is to read all opposing opinions on these issues and perhaps to eventually understand the nebulous, "How MLS works." Wish me luck.
Question I'm wondering if you can answer: If there are owners who aren't investors, are there also investors who aren't owners?
By this I mean are there people who have voting rights who aren't faced with the immediate effects of their decisions? The kind who can vote to, say, keep developmental salaries at McDonald's levels without having to deal face to face with the kids who then have to work three jobs? Or who can vote to abolish the reserve league for financial reasons without dealing with the day-to-day effect on the play of non-starters?
I hope not -- it would seem rather counterproductive. But obviously that doesn't rule it out.
Single entity is "training wheels" in that it reduces competitiveness for players, both inter-league and through scouting. It also always teams like the Revs to ignore much of what does work and draw crowds. They instead just run a bare bone operation and are happy doing it. TFC or Seattle are marketing well and drawing crowds, but with more cost. So in effect Single entity forces all teams to wear training wheels whether they wan to or not.
Sorry to respond so late. I was otherwise occupied for a while. Bear with my while I work through these not-quickly-answerable comments.
Joe,
- I know that the players want "free agency" and want to be able to control what team they play for. Do you think there is a way to do this without jeopardizing the single entity system?
I personally don't think that allowing players to sign with other teams after their contract is over necessarily jeopardizes single entity. That is to say, I've yet to hear a good counter argument for why it does - the only thing people have said is that "no way the owners open the free-agency box even a little bit."
One need only look at WPS for a league with wage controls *and* a form of free agency.
-Do you think that a strong developmental system can operate under the current single entity system?
I don't necessarily see single entity as a barrier to an effective youth development system. But don't forget that there have been a lot of actors on the youth development scene for a long time in the USA, and MLS was formed to be a top flight league, not a high level academy. So in addition to the fact that managers and clubs want to win, and younger players won't get the the time they need, MLS is a little late to the youth dev party. The league is doing the best it can to integrate itself into the current setup as opposed to creating something totally new. We can probably argue for a while about whether or not this is the right approach.
Real Sigi said on a radio interview a couple weeks back that we do a great job with players until they're 17. Then it's kind of a fucked up transition to MLS or some other league, sometimes via college, sometimes not. Since I am him and he is me, I agree with this.
MLS will have some role in the solution to bridging that youth gap, but right now I don't think that anyone has figured out a good way forward. The reserve league was an effort, but it got canned. I also don't see MLS taking an ownership stake in USL or NASL or anything like that. Not to say they wouldn't have some kind of developmental arrangement.
We'll just have to see.
-FS
"BA" Duane,
-(by the way, what the hell does BA stand for?)
Originally it was "bad ass", which I called you at some point and then abbreviated. Then I thought it would be funny if it stood for "Bill Archer." But really it can be whatever you want. "Big Air" "B Average" "Bald Aspirin." "Boldly Arrogant." Have fun with it, it's all yours.
-Considering that the league itself is still not profitable, I'm not sure that I agree in its effectiveness . . .
At the same time, I think it's hard to argue convincingly that the league would be more profitable under a different scheme.
-SUM makes boatloads of money. I was told that TFC's share in 2008 was about $12 million USD. SUM operates separately from MLS, but all clubs are partners - that allows them to show a loss with the franchise, but actually make money on their overall operation.
I'm not entirely convinced it is a separate business entity from MLS, just from what's on the website, but if you can provide evidence, I'd love to see it.
As to profitability, it's the same way with the stadiums. The owner-operator is working under one entity, the stadium is under another, and the stadium pulls a profit but the contractor loses money. $12 million is the largest figure I've seen on SUM money, not saying you're wrong. But it's still extremely hard to evaluate the overall health of the league when we have no idea what the individual teams and MLS (if indeed separate from SUM) loses. And keep in mind there's been a lot of investment in infrastructure - not every stadium got built by municipalities. Not to mention the expensive rents that have been paid in DC and NY.
-To me, it appears that you (and others like Archer) are satisfied with this middling status quo - a situation where the league draws flies on TV, loses young players to Europe, is reducing its role in developing American (and, yes, Canadian) talent and is becoming less competitive in CONCACAF.
I think you see a streak of realism. This league didn't even exist 15 years ago and 9 years ago had to figure out a way to stem major finical bleeding. Remembering where the league came from is not thinking small, but it provides some perspective for where it is. Given the economic strength of the USA and Canada, there are absolutely the financial resources for MLS to eventually be a top league, if not the top league. But it's going to take patient execution of strategy over many years to get there. For me it's not a matter of "this is all we'll ever be," rather I think the pieces are all in place for MLS to gain many more fans. I think 2010 will be a great year for the league. And either one day it will explode, or we'll just wake up and realize the league sold out the season. But at this time, with all the successes of the past decade, I don't see a whole lot of reason to make a major change in direction at this point.
A few young players leaving for Europe is not fatal for the league, nor is losing some games in a tournament not many MLS fans care about. The latter will come, and the league will eventually be strong enough to retain those players.
-Let's go back to SUM for a moment. . . . Is it your position that the league is as good as it will ever be and that we should just give up and try and stay afloat?
Of course not. I've addressed the SUM issue before in an article I keep linking to but I don't think anybody reads. As Dan said, SUM is a way for MLS to make money off people who hate MLS. Not only that, it's a way to promote MLS teams to those people by having teams play more recognized clubs.
Kenn is right when he implies that right now MLS could buy a lot of stars and would still get derided as a sideshow among "hard core" soccer fans. Apparently Toronto has solved that issue and I suppose there's an argument that Seattle has to an extent, but it's not a league-wide phenomenon by any means. MLS understands and I understand just what the ceiling is. Right now the league is using those other teams and competitions to subsidize MLS until it builds the credibility and financial stability it needs to stand on it's own.
I only dealt with SUM in a cursory manner here, but there's no doubt that's what has made the league financially appealing to new investors over the last 8 years.
-I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect the biggest factor that prevents a soccer fan in the U.S. from also being a MLS fan is a perspective that the league's play is not worth supporting.
Let me know when you get that data. It's not something I can speculate on at this time.
-When I, or others far more important than I, talk about "taking the training wheels off" we are referring to starting a process that allows the league to start to capture those fans by improving the overall on-the-pitch product.
Which is why I didn't crack on you because you weren't saying the same thing that Foose was, you just lead me back to it. But you're also on record for wanting TFC to outspend other teams because you're afraid that it will lose fans, so your claim here is a little suspect.
I still contend that raising the salary cap by a lot would needlessly inflate wages and not really improve the quality of play. Right now you couldn't raise it and the quality of play enough to keep a lot of the NT players from playing abroad. I also contend that MLS is perfectly fine letting a significant number of players go abroad because of Fraser.
-American and Canadian soccer fans aren’t stupid. They, for the most part, aren’t going to support a league that is going backwards.
I really think you need to calm down and stop worrying about how MLS is going backward. For one thing, MLS has successfully increased the pool of players who have the skills to move abroad. Things are going very well and will continue to get better.
-FS
-withaplum,
I tend to agree.
Laurie,
-Thanks for this. My goal is to read all opposing opinions on these issues and perhaps to eventually understand the nebulous, "How MLS works." Wish me luck.
You're welcome. You'll need it.
-Question I'm wondering if you can answer: If there are owners who aren't investors, are there also investors who aren't owners?
I think the word you're looking for is "operators" instead of owners. MLS has investors, the teams are run by operators. Or contractors. Kenn seems to prefer the term "franchisees." And yes, there are investors who are not operators. Maybe Bill or Kenn can correct me on this, but I remember hearing Ken Horowitz kept his investment stake in MLS despite losing his team. But I could very well be wrong on that. Also, I'm pretty sure Alan Rothenberg is an investor in MLS despite never having operated a team. And I'm sure there are others.
-By this I mean are there people who have voting rights who aren't faced with the immediate effects of their decisions? The kind who can vote to, say, keep developmental salaries at McDonald's levels without having to deal face to face with the kids who then have to work three jobs? Or who can vote to abolish the reserve league for financial reasons without dealing with the day-to-day effect on the play of non-starters? I hope not -- it would seem rather counterproductive. But obviously that doesn't rule it out.
We'd need to look at the articles of operation of the LLC to know the whole story, but if you read the district court opinion on the summary judgement in Fraser I think you'll see that there's a board of governors that's controlled by the investor-operators. So the other investors have a say, but those with an interest operating teams can always out-vote those who don't.
Hope that helps.
-FS
Anon,
Re: the Revs, that's between NE fans and Kraft. You've got deadbeat teams/owners in every league. But keep in mind Kraft stayed with the league in bad times and sunk in money when others bailed.
-Single entity is "training wheels" in that it reduces competitiveness for players, both inter-league and through scouting.
You lost me on the scouting.
-TFC or Seattle are marketing well and drawing crowds, but with more cost. So in effect Single entity forces all teams to wear training wheels whether they wan to or not.
If your argument is that they're subsidizing the other teams, well, that's the deal of MLS. They've also benefited a lot from the experience of the teams that came before them.
-FS
Great analysis of the single entity structure. I have an image of a group of vetern NFL owners meeting and hashing this plan out back in the early 90's. It's a perfect foil to their enemy: Labor.
At first this system horrified me, but I do see it's merits. Parts of it do match other FA systems. Take the Pacto de Caballeros in the FMF. The pact prevents a player from moving from one team to another in FMF unless there is compensation, even if the player is no longer under contract. Sound familiar? But maybe it is just a CONCACAF thing.
I hate to say it, but unless the players find a way to break the current setup, single entity is the system were are going to have for our first division league. Forever.
So love it, like it or just learn to live with it. I look forward to the salary cap being increased this year but that will be about all that changes.
I really amped today because our local side in Austin has a league to play in this year!!! Go second division! We'll see you in the US open cup.
There is no reason to change the single entity system.
There is a good reason to increase the salary cap though. This will improve the on-field product. No "professional" should be making less money than they could get working at McDonalds. Like it or not, players on a $12,900 base salary aren't going to do anything to help grow this league. From what I've seen $200k can buy a very good player. Doubling the cap can afford a full squad of these players. Now the cap shouldn't double over night... but it doesn't have to take another 10 years of existence either to get there.
Just a quick comment, I did see that SUM is in fact a separate LLC.
-FS
You can dissect a dead cat as long as you want. At the end of the day it will still be a dead cat.
Soccer has been here for a long time, and grows every year, but MLS can't capture the imagination of most players and supporters. Not because it is young or because it's not as good as the BPL - because the model delivers a stunted, inferior product.
WWE is beating MLS in average ratings on cable 25 to 1.
MLS average attendance records were set in 1996.
There are plenty of investors out there who would jump at the chance to develop a club with an unlimited future. Kudos to the Hunts, the Krafts and the Anschutz's but it's time to let a new group of investors in - a group that may give their soccer holdings precedent over their other ones.
Cosmos drew more fans than either the Yankees or the Giants way back in 1977.
Without Cosmos owner Steve Ross bucking the trend of his conservative fellow owners who always saw soccer as a sidelight to their other sports holdings, and hiring world class talent (even if old) there's a good chance we wouldn't be in a third consecutive decade in which soccer was the most popular youth sport in the USA.
Sure, NASL drowned in a sea of mediocre clubs that should have been relegated. You can't blame them. Their accomplishments were made more remarkable by the fact that there was no defined pyramid - they started from ground zero - forty years after the collapse of the ASL.
Yes, I know, most current owners cannot conceive of a world in which they were stripped of their single entity, closed league entitlements. Many would rather go down with the ship than relinquish them. At which point I question their commitment to the game.
Stripping promotion, relegation and fully independent clubs out of this game strips it of a big part of it's soul. Try and name an open league that went down, and I'll list ten failed American closed leagues. The open model makes the club game as accessible as the sport itself.
When we stop coddling billionaire investors, and stop running our first division like Chilis, we will finally get great club soccer here. Seattle is getting world class levels of support, and Portland should too. The right NY club could also raise the rafters, as could an unleashed Galaxy.
Let the rest of the chips fall where they may. I'd rather have four great clubs than twenty mediocre ones.
Clearly, you're passionate about the development of top tier soccer in the USA. However, there are plenty of sporting examples where so-called "closed" leagues or associations have thrived. There's nothing inherently special about the game of soccer that makes pro/rel a requirement of the professional game. Nor is such an arrangement a silver-bullet that will inherently deliver better player development or a better "product" as you refer to it.
The brief success of the NASL and Cosmos was indeed something special that a lot of people remember. But to pretend that team didn't also help sow the seeds of destruction is to be willfully ignorant of how other investors responded to it. The flameout had long lasting effects when it came to finding investors after the NASL demise. I'd love to see your list of investors who would jump at the chance to develop a club with an "unlimited future." Actually, a few of those guys are currently running Manchester United and Liverpool into the ground.
You're also glossing over the major challenges clubs, often ethnic, have faced in breaking into the American mainstream. Ironically, MLS has chosen a slower, conservative growth model, working with the current soccer structure already in place in the USA as opposed to over-running it. So you should probably consider MLS a lovable, soulful quirk in the colorful patchwork of the world soccer universe.
And by the way, an unleashed Galaxy was pretty bad for a couple years there. Same with an unleashed New York.
-FS
Post a Comment