Is MLS doing better than the NBA (or the NHL)?
By: Robert | August 30th, 2007We hear it all the time in our country “no one cares about soccer,” or “MLS is failing.” Deriding comments are directed at American soccer fans ad nauseam; they play almost like a backdrop to our lives. But too often we believe what they say to be true, that we are waving a losing flag, never questioning their conclusions. And while no one can legitimately say that soccer in America is officially here to stay, maybe the beautiful game is a little bit closer to a permanent spot upon the US sports scene than many of us realize.
Glance at the average attendance figures for the major sports leagues across the states (and in the world) and you might just be surprised. Of course in a country obsessed with football with the hands the beautiful game cannot compete with the NFL (67,738 fans per game to just 15,504) nor with our national pastime of gather around and boo Barry Bonds (its issues like these that make me want to write about more than FC Dallas) as MLB draws an average of 31,423 people each game. But the NHL and the NBA attract only 16,961 and 17,754 fans to the arena, approximately one and two-thousand more per game than America’s fledgling soccer league, probably a significantly smaller gap than most people realized. With those numbers in play I don’t think anyone would begrudge me the statement that with soccer growing in this country it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which a few years down the line MLS is actually outdrawing both basketball and hockey to the stadium.
But this is definitely a glass two-fifths full scenario because the lagging TV ratings cannot be disregarded. Americans will apparently watch the national team anytime they suit up and if there is a Premier League game on they will tune in as well (even if it’s Fulham versus Derby County, two teams FC Dallas can beat) yet with MLS too many TVs just stay away. Leagues can’t turn a significant profit through ticket sales, parking stubs and hot dogs alone; the big money comes from the TV deal, the more people tune in, the more advertisers pay for ads, the more the league raises the price for TV rights which grows soccer in America (I skipped a couple steps in there, but hopefully you get it.) That’s how it works, but as long as more people tune into “Friends” re-runs (Rachel is still going to shop, Chandler still has that third nipple and Phoebe’s cat still smells, there you’re done people) than a live MLS match, then football with the feet is going to struggle.
With that said the sport may be in better shape than people realize and the beautiful game may not forever be relegated to some type of niche sport in the American consciousness. Soccer could actually be on the cusp of greatness in this country, which would be something special, especially in Dallas where the FC always stands for “Follow the Cowboys.”
HOOPS PRIDE!
 |
MLS Forums | FC Dallas Results |  |
 |
Category: Game Analysis
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
I agree that MLS is doing better than the perception but averaging 15k over the course of a 30 game season is different than averaging 15k over the course of an 80 game season.
Posted from
United States
-
It’s obvious the MLS desperately needs new TV deals, but what’s not obvious is what those in charge are doing to change it. An MLS game once a week on ESPN and once/twice a week on FSC (a channel not many people even get) is certianly not cutting it. What are “they” doing to fix this, if anything?
Posted from
United States -
what a tosser. dallas sucks mate, couldn’t even beat milwall
Posted from
United States -
I think you mean ‘could’ beat. Saying Soccer America and Fox Soccer Channel don’t know soccer and then saying FC Dallas CAN beat Fulham or Derby County totally invalidates your argument since you appear to have a warped sense of the game yourself.
Posted from
United States -
Truth is, we’ll never know. Sorry, but we won’t. Not only because I doubt Derby City, Fulham, Millwall and FC Dallas are going to be playing in a same league anytime soon, but also because the MLS has reversed season play (playing through summer), so any time Millwall/Fulham plays FC Dallas, then one side will be in the middle of a season, and the other will be in the middle of a rest… Hardly level terms.
So how do we know? Some players from the MLS have succeded in the Premier League, and I think a few might have been successful in lower english leagues. Likewise, players for “small” european clubs have moved to Dallas with success : O’Brien, Morrow, Sutter, Valakiri…
So what? Sure over one game Dallas could lose to Millwall. But then again, Man U lost to York City in the 90s, and I doubt anyone said that York City were “better” than Man U…
Posted from
France -
FC Dallas would have a hard time staying in the Championship. If their players are so good, they would go overseas to make more money. The average Championship player makes around $450,000 a year. The average MLS player? $116,000 and that’s with the designated player salaries. In reality the average salary is $86,000. Players in League Two make more than that. That just aren’t good enough. Please tell me that they would rather make four times as less and stay in the US. Rubbish. If they are that lazy or that devoid of ambition, then it just proves my point. The MLS is made up of lazy players that lack ambition.
Posted from
United States -
I think the TV deals that need to be done are the local networks/stations to pick up games instead of relying on ESPN/FSC to showcase more often. I am not sure which comes first, national exposure leads to local stations picking it up or the other way around. The chicken or the egg?
But, until I can watch Hoops games regularly without it having to be in spanish or versus David Beckham…it is hard for me to follow.
Posted from
United States -
Matt: It’s unfair, or ignorant, to criticize MLS for the TV deals it has in place. At lease, it betrays little knowledge of the TV deals in the recent past. Until this year, MLS paid ESPN to broadcast its games. Before the 2007 season, MLS hadn’t been on a spanish-language broadcaster since the 90s. Now, the league has ESPN and Univision paying for TV rights and those broadcasters now have an incentive to promote MLS.
Posted from
United States -
If you’re standard for doing better is based on current standing the NHL and the NBA are doing better. If it is based on growth rate the MLS is doing better. Hopefully in the next 20yrs the growth will cause us to intersect and surpass so we’re ahead on both.
As for salary being a fair arbiter of quality come on man. The market for soccer players is far from being an open market with free movement of players which distorts valuations. European and especially English teams are paying a premium for players in a market that it is not easy for a US (or non-European) player to break into. The Concacaf & Conmebol leagues with the exception of Mexico, Brazil & Argentina are not flush (and even then poor by European standards and in Brazil & Argentina sometimes shockingly inconsistant with payrolls that are fiction because they never pay them) with cash and for equal cash most MLS teams would buy from Latin America before touching a player who plays below the Championship in England. Some European teams in places like the Bundesliga and Scandinavia are turning to more US/MLS players because in global market terms they are a steal. In any other field the arguement “I make more money than you therefore I must be better at my job then you” would be considered laughable.
Posted from
United States -
Bluemeanies : I don’t think Brian was saying that “because” Championship players are paid more they are better, but rather that “if” MLS players are better than Championship players, why don’t they join the Championship?
Let’s take names. Say Toja. I don’t know how much Toja gets each year. I’ll make a wild guess and pin him down at $90,000. Players like Darren Ambrose get paid more or less $300,000 a year in the Championship. Now, since Charlton Athletic (the side Ambrose play in) have been on tour in various countries over the years (including the USA), and have scouts that cover the world (including the USA), and have signed players from all over the world (including the USA), isn’t it logical to think that the simple fact that Toja isn’t being pressurised by offers from Charlton is an indication as to Toja’s evaluation by Charlton? If Toja was better than Ambrose, then Charlton would sell Ambrose, and sign Toja on a $200,000-a-year deal… Toja wouldn’t resist to a salary that is doubled, and Charlton would still be making a $100,000-a-year saving.
But the facts are that Charlton don’t seem to want Toja. Perhaps the signing of Gibbs gave them an insight as to Dallas’s level (and the MLS’s)… Gibbs was one of his generation’s best defenders in the USA (3 Ivy Leagues, 4 NCAA tournament participations, Elite Eight winner, Ivy League MVP, First team All-American, Superdrafted…) and when he came to Europe, he flopped. He played 2 seasons with Bundesliga side St.Pauli (2 relegations that sent St Pauli down to the Regional divisions), without spark, and then came back to Dallas, where he became a first-team member almost instantly. Since then, he’s played 20 games in 2 seasons, 15 for Feyenoord, who then let him leave for ADO Den Haag, who in turn let him free to join Charlton… Where he’s a sub. And I bet that Charlton talk to him about the american league from time to time, and more specifically Dallas… Since he left there 2 seasons ago.
Posted from
France -
Cory Gibbs is a poor example because he has suffered an awful lot of injuries in the last couple of years.
Toja will go to Europe eventually. He was pushing for a starting spot at River Plate (now don’t tell me they’re crap) before coming to Dallas on loan to get regular 1st team time. The guy is 23. Charlton, even if they wanted him, would have a very hard time getting him because of the English leagues 75% cap rule and unlikely to get through on appeal at this time because he hasn’t featured regularly for Columbia. And it could be likely that Toja only feels comfortable in Spanish language environments so he’d only really want La Liga if he goes to Europe (hey, players have preferences on where they want to live like you and me). I can look at the MLS release for salaries but Toja could be wierd because of loan financing.
But the basic point that I was making is that how much a guy makes isn’t how you compare leagues. There are a few guys who have flopped in MLS and are now making more in Scandinavia and doing all right. And Schelletto is making only about 200,000 for the crew but was a regular and fan favorite for Boca Juniors, who no-one would say are exactly slouches in terms of talent either (and probably spend much less for players of equal quality than Euro clubs do). Mr Brian was trying to make the point that because the players in League 2 (english 4th division) make more than MLSers League 2 must be better than MLS. I think that means either League 2 players are paid too much because of market distortion of MLSers are paid too little because of market distortion or both, because anyone who actually watches or played in both leagues places MLS as somewhere on the scale between League 1 and lower Prem.
Posted from
United States -
Toja only played 3 games for River… So to say that he was “pushing for a starting spot” isn’t exactly correct.
Sure, Charlton wouldn’t be able to sign Toja, because he would fail the work permit (I don’t know what that “cap rule” you’re talking of is). But then why doesn’t he play in la Liga 2, where salaries are on par with the Championship? I doubt that Toja has any feelings for the MLS, so why did he join there? Because both Independiente and River Plate didn’t want him, and MLS did.
Toja might only be 22, but he’s supposed to be one of the MLS’s best players. Chopra was one of the Championship’s best players last season, and he was 22. I don’t think that you can say Toja is far ahead of Chopra by any means…
I agree with you when you say that comparing salaries doesn’t compare the quality of the leagues. But I will say that comparing global salaries shows the competitivity of a league. You keep on bringing up Boca and River. But there’ pretty bad examples, since they have no domestic competition. Newell’s Old Boys? Peh. In Scotland there are two main clubs, and they do comparatively better (5 million scots have yeilded 913 FIFA points, whilst 40 million argentines have yeilded 1491 FIFA points). Yet all the scots are drained by english clubs when they are young. Argentina doesn’t have such a system, so River and Boca can “do their shopping” in the other argentine clubs. Meaning that they pay low salaries, and that the league is very uninteresting. On the other hand, the Serie A of Italy has 4 clubs that challenge for top places, meaning that the best young italians can get the clubs that want them to offer them high salaries, because of competition. Also, there is cost of living, et al. Salaries in Argentina are on average less than half what they are in Italy.
I don’t know if League 2 players are paid more than MLSers. I’m not an accountant, and I only know the range of Championship salaries. But a lot of MLS player, I think, wouldn’t outclass League 2 players. They might be a little better, but not outclass. Look at Terry Cooke. How can he be a regular for Colorado, when he used to be playing (not very well) for League 2 outfit Grimsby 4 seasons ago, and was sold to another League 2 outfit (Sheffield Wednesday) the following season? It’s strange that a player who had failed to break into Premiership, Championship and League 1 sides has become one of the “backbones” of a MLS side… If the MLS is “that” far above League 2 level…
Posted from
France -
Call me ignorant, but I don’t speak spanish so I could care less how many games are on the spanish channels (not disregarding the spanish speaking Americans but most Americans speak English last time I checked). And as for your ESPN comment: The MLS can’t be doing that great of a job because I continuously see the WNBA and women’s softball on ESPN. I refuse to believe that the WNBA is more popular than the MLS. The big name TV networks need to be convinced that the more MLS games that are nationally televised, the more people will watch, leading to desperately needed sponsorships, advertising, tv deals, etc. That’s where I believe the MLS is failing- not convincing the big name networks to take a chance on the MLS. Televising one or two games is not taking a chance.
Posted from
United States
Comments are closed
Home 
