I’ve probably said this before, but I don’t understand why the USMNT isn’t good enough for some Americans. That’s not to say they’re world-beaters or anything; we’re nowhere near the likes of your Spains or Brazils or Germanys. But I don’t understand why some Americans choose to support countries they have no connection to simply because they have better players, they’re more likely to win the World Cup, etc.

People don’t realize that there are other countries out there, countries where soccer is the national pastime, who have gone decades without making the World Cup. Soccer is literally our fourth/fifth most popular sport and yet we’ve qualified for the last six World Cups; I assure you there are fans out there who would gladly trade places with us. Yet, for some, this isn’t good enough. For some reason, simply making it to the World Cup should be taken for granted because of this idea that the US is supposed to be the best at everything. Even things it doesn’t care about.

And don’t get me wrong, I want the US to be a lot more successful. There’s a lot US Soccer has yet to achieve, and I understand this country’s got a long way to go before we’re anywhere near world-class in The World’s Game. But we’re not as bad as the world makes us out to be, especially for a country whose federation is just now celebrating its centennial.

It’s not always fun supporting the US, no. But it could be far, far worse.

I know a lot of you guys who follow this blog who don’t really care about soccer (or any other sports for that matter) may think I’m obsessed or I give too much thought about a game, but while I hate using cliches, it really is more than just a game.

You can learn a lot about a city, about a country, from the clubs that call it “home”. From the fans, their ideologies; political, economic, social, religious, sporting. Values, even.

I’ve learned a lot about places I’ve never been to through this game, and I think it’s really fascinating.

On the “football” vs. “soccer” debate:

Call the sport whatever you want, be that “football”, “soccer”, or “pigglywogglybingboppozoodang”, but keep something in mind:

“Football” is a genre of sports.

“Football” is not used to refer exclusively to association football, but rather whatever code of football is most popular in your geographic region. This may include:

  • Association football (the word “soccer” coming from “association”)
  • Australian rules football
  • American football
  • Canadian football
  • Gaelic football
  • Rugby league
  • Rugby union

And more.

So next time, before you insist that someone’s calling the sport by the wrong name, consider where they’re from and what type of football’s most popular there.

It may help prevent needless arguments.

Why the USMNT/USWNT comparisons need to stop:

I hate beating the dead horse, but it’s mind-blowing that the USMNT/USWNT players can show respect for one another, yet the fans can’t. It’s gotten ridiculous, especially in the aftermath of the WNT’s recent gold medal victory (and again, congratulations to them).

Truth is, you can talk about the accomplishments all you want; the men’s game and the women’s game are two completely different worlds. Anyone who’s watched both men’s and women’s soccer knows this.

In light of that, here are three key reasons why it’s pointless and unfair to compare the USMNT and the USWNT to one another:

  1. The Olympic men’s and women’s tournaments are not the same. There is a clear difference between having a U-23 squad (with a few exceptions) and a full-strength squad. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Spain. If the men’s tournament allowed for full-strength squads, the odds that Spain (who just won three major international tournaments in a row) would’ve gotten eliminated in the group stages would’ve been slim to none. In fact, there’s a pretty good chance they would’ve ran away with the gold. The winner of the men’s Olympic tournament isn’t so much an indicator of which nation is best at men’s soccer, so much as it is an indication of which nations’ youth programs are running well, and who might have a brighter future in regional international tournaments and World Cups. The women’s Olympic tournament, however, functions like a secondary Women’s World Cup, or as a complement to it.
  2. Culture creates differences in the talent pools. Soccer happens to be a popular sport among young women in the United States. Many young women play it throughout their childhood, and continue playing it through their high school and college years. While sports like gymnastics and swimming have also proven popular with America’s young women, soccer tends to be a lot more popular with girls than boys. This, of course, allows for a very large, technically-gifted talent pool from which the U.S. women’s program may draw. On the other hand, young men tend to play soccer only as small children, and the majority of those who do tend to abandon the sport in their pre-teens for football, basketball, or even baseball. For the young male athlete who wants to stay in the U.S. and make a lot of money playing sports professionally, football, basketball, and baseball reign supreme. Add to that the fact that fathers, uncles, and grandfathers who grew up playing those sports want to see their sons, nephews, and grandsons pursuing a career in the games they love, and the U.S. men’s program is left with a comparatively smaller talent pool from which to draw. Both the men’s and the women’s programs have produced excellent players, but on average, the women’s program tends to produce great players more often because they have access to a ton of young athletes who are dedicated to the sport. The same can’t be said for the men’s program, which loses a lot of America’s most talented male athletes to college football, basketball, and baseball programs.
  3. Women’s soccer is fairly new on the global stage. To further aid the U.S. women in their domination of international women’s soccer, they don’t have a lot of competition. That’s not to take away from the WNT’s accomplishments; they still fight for their honors like any other team. But some history must be considered. The rules of association football were first codified by the English in 1863; at this point, it was mainly a men’s game. Women’s soccer didn’t break into the mainstream until about the 1970’s. This means that men’s programs all over the world are around a century older than women’s programs. The USAFA (one of the predecessors to the USSF) wasn’t established until 1913, meaning the U.S. men’s program is about 50 years late to the global men’s soccer scene, and they’re currently trying to make up for that lost time. Meanwhile, the USWNT played their first match in 1985, about 15 years after women’s soccer broke into the mainstream. That’s not very much lost time to make up for by comparison, especially when not a lot of other countries pay as much attention to their women’s programs as they do to their men’s programs. Even Brazil, what many consider to be the most soccer-crazed nation on Earth, gives minimal support to their women’s national team. The women’s game is still growing on a global scale. This is obvious when you consider that the World Cup has existed since 1930, and the Women’s World Cup has only existed since 1991. To put that in perspective, the inaugural Women’s World Cup took place two years before the establishment of Major League Soccer, and five years before the first MLS season. There have only been six editions of the tournament. That’s extremely young. The USMNT are the new kids on the block in a global community that’s been playing the sport for far longer. The USWNT, in many ways, are a guiding example for women’s programs everywhere. The differences are clear.

I call myself a USMNT fan because I mainly follow the men’s team, and most people identify their favorite national teams by the men’s programs. But in reality, I’m a fan of U.S. soccer as a whole. I enjoy watching the USWNT play, even if I don’t watch them as frequently as I do the men. This sport has a long way to go in this country, and it makes me happy to see improvements being made to the men’s and women’s programs, to see Americans slowly learning to love a game that’s as beautiful as the world says it is.

If you like the USMNT, but you don’t really care about women’s soccer, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you like the USWNT, but you don’t really care about men’s soccer, there’s nothing wrong with that either.

But the all the infighting between the fans isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. Yes, the women have won two Women’s World Cups and four gold medals, while the men are still trying to earn respect on the international scene. Yes, the USMNT U-17’s scrimmaged against the USWNT senior team, and the WNT lost 8-2.

But you know what? It doesn’t matter who’s better. It’s not important at all, especially when the tournaments, the accomplishments, and the perceptions surrounding both teams cannot be fairly compared.

What is important, though, is that both programs continue to progress, produce world-class players, and achieve feats that may get Americans to appreciate the sport as much as the rest of the world seems to.

Those players go out there every day, they wear the same crest, they play for the same country. When the men achieve things, the women congratulate them. When the women achieve things, the men congratulate them. They recognize that there are different challenges presented in both sides of the sport, and they respect each other and the fact that they’ve been able to overcome their respective obstacles.

Mutual understanding, mutual respect.

If the players have it, then the fans should too.

I sort of resent the idea that sports are vapid; every season has it’s story.

The “good guys” and the “bad guys”, the plot twists, the shifts in power. The births of dynasties, the fall of empires. New hopes and old evil. Long-time rivals locked in eternal struggle. Mercenaries, nobility, leaders, and grunts. Tactical superiority. Objects of great desire. Victors, failures, and those who live to fight another day.

Occasionally, sports can mimic the drama some of the world’s finest fiction, and the best part? It’s all real.

So though watching a game may not seem as sophisticated as enjoying timeless literature, I see no reason why it needs to be looked down upon as “meaningless” or “dumb”.

In the end, it’s entertainment. And as long as it’s entertaining, that’s all that should matter, right?

Some of these supporters groups need to cool it with the whole Eastern-European politically-driven-ultras-group aesthetic; hanging “ACAB” banners and bringing politics into the sport don’t make you seem “hard” or “legit”.

You’re forgetting that you’re not supporting some local community club, you’re supporting a league-owned franchise. You can be as “against modern football” as you want to be; Major League Soccer is one of the most “modern football” leagues in the world. You want to love your team and get behind it? Go ahead, I encourage it, but don’t lose perspective and think for a second that MLS isn’t a part of the “modern football” you make banners about.

It’s great to be against sexism and racism and things like that; that’s perfectly fine. The more tolerant the environment, the better. But turning a sporting environment into a platform to express political/personal ideologies (like “all cops are bastards”) will only lead to more conflict in the end. And that’s going to make it a lot harder for the sport to grow in America, which is the overall goal.

Who cares if the guy next to you is a democrat, republican, or politically neutral? Who cares if they like police or they’re an officer themselves? As long as they’re not hurting anyone, as long as they’re tolerant and respectful of others, as long as they’re cheering for the same team you are, that should be enough.

“Buying titles, spending money, modern football, blah, blah, blah”

It’s the dumbest argument in the world, and taking it to the fans is even dumber.

I don’t know about any of you guys, but I didn’t call up Sheikh Mansour and ask him to buy Manchester City. I’m not the one who made that decision. But you lot go on about “oil money” and “buying titles”; what are you getting at?

Do you want me to abandon my team just because we’re having a good season and someone with money in the bank bought the club? Do you want me to abandon my team just because they spent money and made transfers just like every other club has? Do you want me to abandon my team just because some players signed some contracts, and ended up in a sky blue kit? Do you want me to abandon my team just because decisions were made that were out of my control?

Because if that’s your aim, then I’m sorry, but no. I’m staying.

I’ll stay if we choke the title away on Sunday. I’ll stay if we get relegated once more, twice, thrice or otherwise. I’ll stay if we go bankrupt. I’m staying.

If your team’s not fielding an all-academy XI, then I hate to break it to you, but you’ve bought your title. That’s how it goes. If you can’t accept that, then that’s your problem. Blame the money all you want; I can’t stop you.

But the payroll wasn’t that big of an issue when City was still struggling.

“The Chicharito Effect”

I’ve spoken a bit about this phenomenon before on this blog, but I thought it was about time I gave it a name, and maybe elaborated a bit more upon it.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the international game lately and how national team loyalties impact club loyalties and vice-versa, and I’ve noticed something amongst certain ethnicities. Because he’s a very well-known and more recent example, I like to call this phenomenon “The Chicharito Effect”. For the sake of this post, we’ll define it:

The Chicharito Effect: When someone supports a club mainly because their favorite national team player plays there.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Chicharito (and who are obviously comfortable under those rocks of yours), he’s a Mexican striker who transferred from C.D. Guadalajara (“Chivas”) to Manchester United in 2010. He’s a fan favorite amongst Mexican soccer fans (like Mark Viduka to Australians or Robert Green to Americans), and in the wake of his transfer to United, there has undoubtedly been a vast increase in Mexican Manchester United supporters. This is due in part to his good performances with the Mexican national team, and his noteworthy play at Chivas. Once he first put on a United shirt, it was surely only a matter of time until fans of Chivas and El Tri would follow suit.

Another example from the same club would be Ji-Sung Park, who is himself responsible for a large portion of South Korean Manchester United supporters. And he’s not the only one. I’ve spoken to Argentinians who support FC Barcelona mainly because of Messi, and I’ve spoken to Brazilians who supported AC Milan while Ronaldinho was there.

I’ve often wondered what drives this phenomenon. I’ve never really subscribed to it myself, probably because us Americans don’t have an example of our own to follow. Sure, you could argue that, according to this logic, most Americans would support Everton (for Tim Howard) or Fulham (for That Boy Clint Dempsey™), but American supporter culture is too rife with bandwagoners and fairweathers to allow for that to be a realistic possibility. However, at a recent Fulham match I will say that there were some Americans in the crowd with USA Dempsey jerseys, cheering him on. I’m sure you could find some Americans at Goodison as well, whenever Timmy’s in net.

I’ve always thought that it’s the “when he succeeds, we all succeed” mentality that gives these players (and by extension, their clubs) such strong fan followings. That feeling that “he’s one of us”, and we like to see one of our own succeed. The club, merely becomes a foil for their success. “Living vicariously through others”, in a way.

I find it interesting, though I can’t say I’ve experienced it personally. The closest I ever came to it was back in 2010; I almost started supporting Atletico Madrid because of Diego Forlan (and to some extent, Kun Aguero as well). After all, I liked watching Uruguay in the World Cup, and to this day I still think Forlan is a talented player, but I soon realized that I wasn’t watching Atleti for Atleti. I was watching Atleti for Diego Forlan, and I’m not even an Uruguay fan (despite the fact that they’re really entertaining). That idea didn’t sit too well with me.

It seems that others, though, have a different opinion.

So I’m curious; have any of you guys ever fallen victim to The Chicharito Effect?

You know what? I’m not going to get nervous.

I have no reason to be.

This team has fought hard for every result so far this season. There have been ups, there have been downs, and everything else in-between. A few weeks ago, we all thought the dream had died at the Emirates. Now? Now City’s on the brink of the one of the most spectacular comebacks (if not the most) ever seen in the Premier League.

In reality, Sir Alex and his merry men should be more concerned about letting City back into the title race than Mancini should be at whether they win or lose (or draw) tomorrow. Sure, City shouldn’t have dropped the lead in the first place, but what’s done is done, and tomorrow will tell if we’re still in this or not. Call me biased, call me unrealistic, I don’t care; it’s my opinion. United do have the experience advantage, yes, and you’ve got to respect that. Say what you want about them, but they’re notorious for breaking their opponents’ hearts late on, and you can never write them off. But neither team is quite where they thought they would be months ago, so this derby is most certainly going to be something special.

If you ask me, because they’re holding the lead, it’s United’s match to lose. So here’s hoping they lose it.

I’ll still be a City fan either way.

MLS no longer points to Orlando for the next expansion team?

amandaquegolazo:

ESPN: With expansion, there’s been some buzz surrounding Orlando and them possibly leapfrogging New York and becoming the 20th team.

DG: That’s internet buzz. I was in Orlando, and it was a great visit. I have only terrific things to say about Phil Rawlins and the ownership group at Orlando City. They’ve got a really cool thing going on there and I was very impressed. But I really don’t think at all that this is a matter of Orlando coming before New York. There are some other markets that have shown progress of late. The good news here is there is a lot of continued interest in expansion. Now we’re going to continue to look at getting the right owner in the right market with the right stadium solution. We are very focused on New York. We might not get something done. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to continue to try. We are working very closely with the city of New York, and I can’t say enough about how thankful I am that the city is so interested in soccer, and so interested in MLS that they’ve worked to support our efforts to find a stadium site. And if we’re able to find a site, we’ll have no issues getting an owner. But developing a stadium in the New York metropolitan area is very difficult. Perhaps the most difficult place just based on density and land availability in the country. But I still feel pretty good about trying to get something done there.

That is interesting though. I wonder where they would built a new stadium. Also how much farther will they expand the MLS? No other league has more than 20..

Oh boy.

“We are very focused on New York. We might not get something done. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to continue to try.”

You’re welcome to continue trying, Garber, but you just stated a few sentences ago:

“I have only terrific things to say about Phil Rawlins and the ownership group at Orlando City. They’ve got a really cool thing going on there and I was very impressed.”

You also stated:

“There are some other markets that have shown progress of late.”

So why should the entire league be “very focused on New York” when there is not only a team already representing the New York metropolitan area, but you “might not get something done”? If there are other markets that have “shown progress”, why not focus on those markets (which may have lower-league teams and an already-existing infrastructure) instead of building a completely new team within an established market?

Why should the league prioritize a second New York team over outward expansion?

“The good news here is there is a lot of continued interest in expansion.”

Putting new teams into existing markets is not really expansion at all, though. We could put five teams in New York, eight in Chicago, fourteen in Los Angeles; that doesn’t mean Major League Soccer would have expanded for the good of the league and US soccer as a whole.

You stated:

“We are working very closely with the city of New York, and I can’t say enough about how thankful I am that the city is so interested in soccer, and so interested in MLS that they’ve worked to support our efforts to find a stadium site.”

I don’t know whether to take these words at face value or not, but if the city is “so interested in soccer, and so interested in MLS”, why haven’t they supported the New York Red Bulls? It shouldn’t be that difficult; the team has been in the New York metro area for about 16 years now; I wouldn’t think familiarity would be an issue.

Or are we importing NY2 because NYRB hasn’t been successful enough?

“But developing a stadium in the New York metropolitan area is very difficult. Perhaps the most difficult place just based on density and land availability in the country.”

And that is indeed quite true, but for all of the controversy Red Bull has caused as an organization, this has to be the one thing they’ve gotten right. You say it’s “very difficult”, but Red Bull was able to build Red Bull Arena within a reasonable distance from the heart of the New York metropolitan area all within four years of taking over the MetroStars.

“But I still feel pretty good about trying to get something done there.”

Maybe this is just me, but I don’t think we should be neglecting expansion into new markets just because you feel “pretty good” about the prospect of putting a second team into an existing market.

I respect you Garber, because you’ve really done a fantastic job with Major League Soccer. I don’t agree with everything you’ve done, and everything you do, but I believe that you’re a well-intentioned man who wants the best for this league.

But the idea of putting a second team into an existing market when there are areas of the country that have no team to root for whatsoever puzzles me completely.

If there ever is going to be a NY2, I firmly believe that it should only come into existence after this league has branched out as far as it can geographically. And that’s not just for NY2, that’s for any team that wants to establish itself within an already-established MLS market.

This league, and this sport, should make it a priority to expand as far outward as possible within the United States. Not just for the good of the league, but for the good of the sport as a whole in America.

So everyone’s asking whether Lionel Messi can be considered “the greatest of all time” if he never wins a World Cup:

The answer, at least in my opinion, is “no”.

Club achievements are notable accomplishments, yes, but if you can’t succeed on the world’s biggest stage, you’ll ultimately be considered inferior to past greats who have club achievements and have won a World Cup. It’s the nature of sport.

To be considered amongst the greatest footballers of all time, I believe you have to fulfill at least two of these three requirements:

A. Achieve noteworthy success for club and country.

B. Contribute a style of play/philosophy to the sport that changes the game forever.

C. Achieve noteworthy success on an individual level.

There’s no doubt that Messi has achieved ‘C’, and you could argue that Messi has achieved ‘B’ with Barcelona’s “Tiki-taka” style of play. However, I wouldn’t call Messi the primary example of Tiki-taka play. Look at Johan Cruyff and Total Football; Cruyff is internationally regarded as the most famous exponent of the Total Football system. When you hear “Total Football”, you think “Cruyff”.

When I hear “Tiki-taka”, I think of “Xavi and Iniesta”. Tiki-taka takes place primarily in the midfield, and though he is quite good at it, Messi is a forward.

And even after all of this, ‘B’ is very difficult to accomplish, especially in the modern day. It takes a special type of creativity and vision to develop an effective style of play that changes the game in an age where the game has matured substantially. And while Messi is undoubtedly a footballing genius, I don’t think he has that revolutionary, sport-altering spirit about him.

I don’t want to say “It’s too late to change the game” because it’s never too late for that, but the older the game gets, the less likely it is that someone’s going to swoop in and change everything. I don’t think Messi is that player.

His most reasonable choices, then, would be ‘A’ and ‘C’.

As far as the club side of ‘A’, Messi has no doubt achieved that. The man won The Sextuple, for the love of God. And again, he’s achieved ‘C’; no question about that.

What remains, however, is the country side of ‘A’. If Messi wants to be considered a contender for the title “Greatest of All Time”, the easiest way for him to do it would be by winning a World Cup. To be able to translate his club success onto the greatest stage the game has to offer would surely immortalize the man who seems to be this generation’s most brilliant footballer.

Of course, even if he doesn’t win a World Cup, his name will surely be mentioned amongst your Beckenbauers, Peles, Maradonas, Cruyffs, Zidanes, and Ronaldos.

But to be included in the conversation of who the greatest of all time is, I personally believe that he needs a World Cup.

Here’s my thing about people who support teams from cities/countries they have no connection to:

So there’s a ton of people who support Spain, right? Tons of people who like Manchester United, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, etc?

I get that. I support Man City and I’ve never been to England (I hope to go someday); a lot of Americans follow foreign clubs and MLS teams, or just foreign clubs if they don’t have a team of their own. And while I’m not fond of “bandwagoners”, if you bandwagon your team; if you started supporting Spain after the World Cup, for example, all right. That’s on you. If you want to do that, that’s fine. It would be best if you didn’t, but if you did, whatever.

Just make sure you stick with your team; that’s all.

I don’t care if you just started supporting Manchester United after they won the Premier League last season, if you started supporting Spain after they won the World Cup; if you’re willing to suffer with them from here on out along with every other fan who’s been supporting them for years, then you’re a legitimate fan (at least in my eyes). Maybe not as legitimate as the ones who’ve been supporting them longer and before all the success, but your loyalty will prove that you’re not a bandwagoner.

It isn’t about when you start supporting a team; sometimes, you can’t control that. It’s about whether you’re willing to be there until the end.

I’ve always wondered why popular leagues like the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A don’t embrace salary caps.

You’re probably thinking “Oh look, an American is trying to put his newfangled American ways into the European game.” But where’s the real evil in a salary cap?

I mean, perhaps there’s something I’m missing, but at least with a salary cap, you not only ensure that leagues stay competitive, but you ensure that clubs like Anzhi Makhachkala can’t just build mega-squads of talented, money-hungry mercenaries just because they have a few bucks in the bank.

There are many ways to implement a salary cap, so it doesn’t have to be a strict “You can keep Xavi if you get rid of Messi” kind of deal, and I think it would help shift everyone’s focus back to the actual game itself, instead of money. A UEFA-enforced salary cap (accounting for different forms of currency in different countries) would be one idea.

It would be tricky to implement, but not impossible. I’d rather cap the huge clubs and give the smaller clubs a chance than see the same clubs winning trophies year in, year out. I mean, teams like Wigan and Catania aren’t going to Horatio-Alger their way into the Champions League anytime soon.

If there’s such disdain for big-money clubs, why not do something to stop it? If you don’t want a salary cap, that’s fine, but then don’t be surprised when a noveau riche club comes in and swipes all the best talent.

Why, so we can maintain our “super secret cool kids club”? No dude, screw that noise; I want this sport to someday match or surpass the NFL in popularity so high school and college athletics programs can give it the attention it deserves, so that all of our favorite MLS teams may someday be as legendary as Europe’s most prestigious sporting institutions, and so that the United States can finally be taken seriously on the international scene. I want the U.S. to win a World Cup, and the popularity of soccer (yes, that’s what we call it, other countries do too, deal with it) in the U.S. is vital to achieving that end. I don’t care about being a niche market anymore; I’m tired of hearing people say “There’s pro soccer in America?”, unaware of The Beautiful Game being played right in their own backyards. This is a sport, not a secret society. A sport. It thrives off of money and popularity, and I want it to be the biggest thing in the country as soon as possible. Why you don’t want “The World’s Game” to become big in the United States is beyond me entirely.
Pop-upView Separately

Why, so we can maintain our “super secret cool kids club”?

No dude, screw that noise; I want this sport to someday match or surpass the NFL in popularity so high school and college athletics programs can give it the attention it deserves, so that all of our favorite MLS teams may someday be as legendary as Europe’s most prestigious sporting institutions, and so that the United States can finally be taken seriously on the international scene. I want the U.S. to win a World Cup, and the popularity of soccer (yes, that’s what we call it, other countries do too, deal with it) in the U.S. is vital to achieving that end.

I don’t care about being a niche market anymore; I’m tired of hearing people say “There’s pro soccer in America?”, unaware of The Beautiful Game being played right in their own backyards. This is a sport, not a secret society. A sport. It thrives off of money and popularity, and I want it to be the biggest thing in the country as soon as possible.

Why you don’t want “The World’s Game” to become big in the United States is beyond me entirely.