What MLS Wants But Cannot Have
(Sounders Vs. Timbers US Open Cup Match)
I try to stay away from opinion pieces, and instead let data drive what I write about. One topic where that doesn't always apply is the single-entity nature of Major League Soccer (MLS). I much prefer the open league, promotion/relegation, club model found in the rest of the world. It forces teams to justify they're good enough to continue playing in the league (*cough* LA Clippers *cough* Detroit Lions), it often prevents clubs from bilking people who don't attend the matches with the cost of a stadium, and generally drives real allegiances between teams and supporters (and by consequence, rivalries between teams and their supporters).
MLS, like many other US sports leagues, does not follow this model. It's a closed market league, where the clubs who pay enough money get the right to be a franchise within the league. Greater focus is paid on league brand than individual club brands, the league will condone the relocation of a team if the tax payers refuse to give in to the often ludicrous public financing of stadiums requested by the franchises and the league, and the league artificially depresses player wages by owning all the contracts and setting a very low salary cap. Does anyone blame Edson Buddle for signing with a second-tier German team who is rumored to be paying him four times more than the Galaxy's best offer?
At the end of the day, we US soccer fans want the game and governance that the rest of the world enjoys, not an Americanized version whose only justification is to protect owner and league leadership interests at the expense of players and supporters.
Don Garber and MLS took the single-entity insult to a new level yesterday by suggesting the concept of a rivalry week.
The commissioner also said that the conference alignment and playoff format is close to being finalized. And to further intensify the Pacific Northwest rivalry between Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, Garber said MLS is strongly considering a week-long round robin between the clubs -- three regular season matches in a span of a week or so (Van vs. Sea, Sea vs. Port, Port vs. Van).
Apparently Don Garber and the MLS brass have zero understanding of the markets into which they are expanding. We, the supporters of these clubs, don't need any help in intensifying the rivalry. It's already hot enough, thank you very much. My Sounders sell out 36,000 seats to every game whether it's the New England Revolution or our rivals to the north or south. We may have to consider opening up more space when the Timbers and Whitecaps come to town. Meanwhile, most franchises in the league are struggling to get anywhere north of 15k-16k fans per match. My Sounders have worked to get 500 away supporter seats assigned for matches against our two local rivals, 350 more than the league requirement and still too few in my opinion. We have a history that pre-dates MLS's, and frankly now is trying to be co-opted by MLS in the worst way. We did this without the help of MLS, and perhaps MLS should spend more time studying how we've achieved this success instead of trying to artificially create it.
Why does this all matter? Because it's we, the supporters and fans, who are the lifeblood of soccer in the United States. We want to go to the stadiums to see our teams play, and it is our support that is the envy of the rest of the league's teams. We show up match after match, setting attendance records in MLS and the US Open Cup, and want to especially do so when the Timbers and Whitecaps are in town. We love our team so much that we will travel to Portland or Vancouver to see our team play, even if it means most of us will be outside of the sanctioned supporters area and spread all over the opposing franchise's stadium. This is the dedication to a team that develops real, and not manufactured, rivalries. Playing a rivalry week would kill that opportunity to travel to the opposing rivals' stadiums, and we've consistently asked that all Sounders/Timbers/Whitecaps matches be put on weekends (preferably Saturdays) to facilitate such travel. Garber's suggest Rivalry Week is total rejection of that request.
I use possessive terms like "my" and "we" to demonstrate the gap between Commissioner Garber's publicly stated goal and his privately stated one. This proposal has NOTHING to do with fostering real rivalries - if it did he'd listen to the supporters and put all of the matches on the weekends. Instead, it's all about manufacturing fake rivalries for broadcast on TV for the purposes of enhancing MLS's brand recognition. It's the same mentality that is behind the manufactured drama of reality TV - call it "Jersey Shore, MLS-style." In the end, this proposal is all about sacrificing the will and desires of those who really pay MLS's bills and kept the league alive during its darkest hours - the supporters - for the dream of having the MLS brand compete with the likes of the other US pro leagues. It's all about putting the league first, and teams and their supporters second.
Commissioner Garber, thank you very much for your suggestion. Frankly, it's not a very good one, is completely unnecessary, and is counterproductive to you publicly stated goal. How about you actually study how the Timbers, Sounders, and Whitecaps built and maintained committed fan bases without the help of MLS (and often times in spite of it) instead of exhibiting stereotypical single entity behavior. That would ensure you learn the best practices of building clubs loved by supporters, which in turn builds real love for the competition present in a league in which those clubs participate. Then MLS's brand will truly rise within the American sports landscape and the global soccer community.
No comments:
Post a Comment