Other countries that don't care much about soccer/football?

Yes. Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey both came for more money, not because they can’t make a European roster. Thierry Henry played and scored for Arsenal on loan last year. Keane also scored 3 goals in 4 EPL games on loan in 2012.

I think the dismissal of Cahill and Keane are pretty flip. Neither are Zlatan and never were, but they’ve both been at least solid players that could play in almost any league in the world.

MLS definitely isn’t a top league, but it’s significantly better than it was 5 years ago, and miles ahead of where it started. With much better ad revenue, youth teams, and attendance, I think this trend will continue.

Sure - I agree with that, I’m battling the assertion that it’s the ‘sixth best league in the world behind the big four in Europe and Mexico’. For fuck’s sake, have some humility.

Oh, definitely not sixth. Although one thing in its favor if you’re arguing against, say, the Netherlands, is that MLS is much less top heavy than most leagues. While Ajax and Feyenoord and PSV (substitute the current cream of the crop) are way better than any MLS team, the mid and low table MLS teams aren’t as large a drop in quality and probably on par or maybe better.

More realistic would be something like:
[ol]
[li]Spain[/li][li]Germany[/li][li]England[/li][li]Italy[/li][li]France[/li][li]Mexico[/li][li]Brazil[/li][li]Argentina[/li][li]Russia[/li][li]Turkey[/li][/ol]
and then arguing over Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, English Championship, MLS, and the like.

Donovan has stayed in MLS because he likes California, btw. Everton tried to sign him a couple times. Bradley and Dempsey are both getting paid something like $5m a year to be the face of their franchises. They’re worth more to a team where they’re a star in MLS than to be a cog in a machine in one of the big 4 leagues.

I agree with you mostly, I dont believe the MLS to be the 6th best league in the world. It may generate more money than most leagues, but passion wise it is still lacking imo. What I would say is that after a handful of European and South American leagues(namely Brazil) most other leagues are much of a muchness. Its impossible to prove that the MLS is better than your average South American league, but neither will it be significantly inferior.

And someone mention Russia/USSR earlier. The Soviets did not plow money into the game. I think this was due to the game not having a sufficiently high reputation at the Olympic level. However, I believe the game was always popular enough. Probably moreso since the fall of communism.

That’s a fair point, although the big talking point in the Dutch league over the last decade or so maybe has been that there is no more top three and that the chances are much more equally divided. In recent years, this has led to non-traditional top three teams winning the Eredivisie (AZ, Twente). Still, like other American sports leagues, the teams in MLS are much closer to each other in skill level than they are in European football leagues.

I’d agree with that. Ukraine too, lots of money there, although it’s not clear where it’ll head with the political crisis there.

So for some players playing in MLS is actually financially attractive, but on the whole most European teams can afford to pay players more money and thus attract the better players. Sure, location matters, not just for Donovan (I bet Henry wouldn’t be playing for Real Salt Lake even if they offered him offered him more than what he’s getting to play in NYC) - but on the whole footballers go where the money goes. And you just have to admit that MLS is a place that does not produce a lot of upwardly mobile talent, and only manages to attract talent from elsewhere that is in the twilight years of their careers.

I was having a discussion about whether soccer in America will ever see top players coming up like we produce for our “big” sports (baseball/football/basketball–arguably hockey as well.) The friend I was discussing it with said as long as sports like football/baseball/basketball exist it couldn’t happen, because our best athletes will always gravitate to those sports.

I disagree for a few reasons:

  1. The United States has over 300m people, among the largest of any of the countries that is in the World Cup and larger than I believe any of the “big time” soccer countries. This gives us a huge base of potential athletes that could all potentially go into several sports.

  2. Support for MLS is already decent. It’s not a big TV sport, and maybe it never will be. But look at baseball–baseball in my opinion has extremely good attendance numbers. The game of baseball continues to be tremendously strong in America, and the clubs continue to make big money even though baseball is not by any means the king of the TV ratings. People these days basically check the standings of their favorite team and mostly only watch the playoffs. MLS doesn’t have to beat football in TV to become a good league, and MLS doesn’t have to beat NFL in TV ratings for America to produce good soccer players.

The way sports in America are heavily driven by advertising dollars, NFL is basically 100% the perfect TV sport. Compare it to any other sport in the world, and nothing compares to American football in terms of suitability for TV. I’d guess given the continuous play and the fact you don’t get commercial breaks makes advertisers and even networks in America not huge fans of soccer games, they’ll always generate less revenue than airing American football games. But that’s okay, because as baseball shows even without being TV king you can be a viable sport in the U.S.

  1. Soccer isn’t necessarily competing with all of our popular sports for potential players. Hockey in America gets good attendance (the average is like 18k/game but remember NHL is played in indoor arenas and few hold more than 20k), but in terms of kids playing it and producing good hockey players it’s more a regional thing with the strongholds being around the Great Lakes and New England.

Football and basketball both primarily select, even at younger ages, for kids who are both big and tall. Football with an emphasis on big, basketball with an emphasis on tall. This is simple genetics, and it excludes many kids from ever being big in football. One of my best friends growing up was a muscle bound monster by age 17, but he was 5’11 and 280 lb (and trust me, most of it was not fat, I’d say he was at 20% body fat–he was squatting 700 lbs in high school.) He always played football, but always on the offensive line, he ended up getting a scholarship to play at a Division II school, but it wasn’t really easy and he and his Mom had to work hard sending videos out to get any interest in him. The reality is he probably should have been playing a different position, because it doesn’t matter how strong he as or how well he had learned that position up through the rest of his life, at 5’11" he was never going to get a chance at a big time college and certainly never could have played professionally. And while you can say maybe he should have played a different position, the one thing about this kid was he was explosive off the line but he was slow generally. He was too slow to play really any position on defense, didn’t have the hands to slim down and be a fullback or running back etc.

My point basically is football and basketball moreso than soccer exclude people from the highest levels based on things that can only be controlled via genetics–namely size and height.

Not that general athletic ability isn’t influenced by genetics, but you can go to soccer camps your whole childhood and play constantly and if you’re of average height and really physically fit you can be a very good soccer player. That’s not really true of American football and basketball.

Baseball doesn’t filter out people so much either, other than that a pitching prospect will rarely be given the time of day if they don’t clear 6’ (there have been successful 5’10" or so MLB pitchers but they have to have real stuff for a scout to give them a second glance at that height.)

So I think there’s actually a large pool of athletic kids in America that are never really going to be suited for the two of the big money sports (football / basketball) that are available to be developed into soccer players.

What they get paid in MLS is no indication of their worth as a footballer.
You said it yourself, they are a “star” in MLS but would be a cog in a big 4 league.

Nothing wrong with that of course, good luck to them. Beckham did the same when he couldn’t hack it at the top level anymore and I’ve got nothing but respect for him both as a footballer and man.

And yes, MLS is getting better and the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.
It would not surprise me to see overtures made to the MLS champions regarding formalised competition with the European clubs at some point in the future.

Beckham could certainly still “hack it” when he went to MLS. He played for England for four more years after his first MLS stint.

I agree with your general point, but these are not convincing arguments. Cahill was a Ballon D’Or nominee. Keane is still Ireland’s best player.

Lots of players remain at their best well into their thirties. Zinedine Zidane was France’s best player in the 2006 World Cup at almost 35. Ruud Gullit was English Player of the Year in 2006 at 34. Miroslav Klose is 36 and *still *Germany’s second- or third-best striker.

I’m not saying it’s an indication of their worth on the world market. I’m saying they came to MLS for money rather than the idea that they can’t play in one of the big 4 leagues. Dempsey wasn’t out of place with Spurs and Bradley wasn’t out of place with Roma. They both could still play in the EPL or Bundesliga or whatever.

And what a very, very sweet movie that is. Thanks for reminding me!

I don’t think Gaelic football is more popular than soccer in Ireland. They’re both very popular but I think soccer trumps Gaelic, especially in Dublin.

I don’t doubt that that are lots of places where football isn’t the number one sport but on the whole it’s pretty clear that it’s the most popular sport in the world.

I’d be curious to have more recent figures that take both the 2010 World Cup and the 2012 Olympic Games into account.

It depends on how you count such things, but 617 million home viewers watched at least 20 minutes of the 2010 final. That’s a 5% increase from 2006. Based on estimates it looks like there were another 60-70 million “out of home” viewers.

If you count the people who watched at least a minute of the final it was more than a billion.

I can tell you Thais certainly have more interest in the World Cup than in the Olympics. No doubt it’s the same with lots of other countries.

You know they rank these things, right?

Another ranking using just World Cup players outs the MLS at 12th, but not too far from it’s nearest competitors point wise. Clearly, one can argue the point, but I don’t think it’s too far fetched to argue the MLS is near the top after the major leagues in Europe.

The main reason I think the argument is compelling is because the MLS has a lot more parity than many of those other league (especially the Big 4). Additionally, US clubs have been doing much better recently in the CONCACAF Champions League. The top Mexican clubs still win, but the games are more competitive.

“They” do a lot of things. Some of them are even condescending assholes, if you would believe it.

Twelfth is one thing, and something I have no problem with. Arguing for sixth, as was done up thread, must require some combination of ignorance and jingoism that I will have no truck with.

I don’t see what parity has to do with it, especially if the Big 4 don’t have it. Are you arguing that even though the highest level an MLS team will reach is not very high, the average is still acceptable? That does not produce evidence that puts MLS any higher than second tier European leagues. Meanwhile, you appear to ignore arguments introduced up thread stressing the *production *of talent that will go on to play in better leagues.

Considering that World Soccer is a British magazine I don’t think your jingoism claim holds any sway.

Well, I said it was a combination of the two…

Considering that about 80% of the US based players and 75% of the CONCACAF teams are likely going through to the knockout stage, maybe it’s you who is guilty of jingoism and prejudice.

Good comeback!