I feel that it is very dangerous if soccer were to succeed in America. Why because wouldnt it have all the absolute best players in the world playing in one nation's league.

Take a look at hockey, up until recently Canadians controlled it all the best players Gretzky, Messier etc played in Canada. Then the Americans really started to throw around their money, now they control it and own all the best players.

If the Americans started to like soccer and it became a large public interest then the richest country in the world could easily buy the likes of a del piero, beckham, raul, rivaldo etc.

And put them all in one league.

What does everyone think of this.

I mean it has already happened to American Football where Joe Montana and others play a game a week and make several million dollars annually.

I think what you are saying will never come true. Are you saying that you would play in a comparetively very boring league just because of money. I do not see [players like Raul beckham etc coming to America because they are not swayed by money alone. They would not come because they would not like it. Usa already has the money and the fans but you dont see players like the aforementioned coming to your country. Matheuss came when he was 38 (when he comes). I doubt soo much that he would have done the same thing when he was twenty 2 if they offered the same offer. American soccer is very uninteresting to worldwide spectators and players. They have made all their own rules which do not correspond fully with those of FIFA in other places. Sorry but I cant say I agree.

I don't believe they'll be the best. In less than 20 they'll be competitive throughout the world. they are making the changes needed to attract more soccer fanatics. everyone agrees that their set of rules that differed from the world were a bad idea.
There young players are good (there under17 team made it to the semi's). Look for their WC2002 to do real well.
As for the MLS, all they need is a few good players in their prime to play over here. Times change, and as always, money talks.

<< Are you saying that you would play in a comparetively very boring league just because of money. I do not see [players like Raul beckham etc coming to America because they are not swayed by money alone. They would not come because they would not like it. >>

Strangely enough, if enough of those world-class players come to MLS, perhaps MLS will no longer become boring. Look at the New York Cosmos of the old NASL... granted, that team got most of its stars (Pele, Beckenbauer, Kruyff, etc.) when they were past their prime, but that was still a pretty exciting team to watch!


<< Usa already has the money and the fans but you dont see players like the aforementioned coming to your country. >>

It doesn't matter if the USA has the money, it matters whether or not MLS has the money, and it currently doesn't. Think about it - the league has a strict annual salary cap of 1.5 or 1.8 or something million dollars PER TEAM... there are benchwarming players in England who each get paid more money than that per year! And unfortunately there aren't as many fans of soccer in the US as there should be... but perhaps with the guidance of Don Garber (the new commissioner MLS just hired) there will be a greater awareness of the league. Heck, he's already gotten the league a much better television deal than it has ever had!


<< They have made all their own rules which do not correspond fully with those of FIFA in other places. >>

I agree that the changed rules that MLS initially implemented were stupid (like the count-down clock, official time on the scoreboard, shootouts, etc.) - almost all soccer fans in the US hated them! Perhaps you haven't heard the news lately, but Don Garber (MLS's new commisioner) recently announced that starting at the beginning of next season (March of 2000), MLS will have a count-up clock, official time kept by the referee, no more shootouts (if a game ends in a draw, there will be a "Golden Goal" overtime consisting of a maximum of two five-minute halves... if both teams are still even at the end of the overtime, the game ends in a draw), etc.

MLS may not have the greatest league in the world within 20 years, but it will be competitive and perhaps even fun (depending on how much the owners are willing to pay top-flight players, and on the development of soccer talent here in the States)!


-G




[This message has been edited by Goodsport (edited 11-28-1999).]

Highly unlikely. MLS has several things going against it.

1. Collegiate level. Americans regard this as highly as the pro leagues. Not only are the players not prepared for professional play at this level in terms of technique, but by the time they leave college at 22 the formulative years for developing a player are gone.

2. University education is important, but America will never have a successful league when more importance is put on education then the sport.

3. Unless MLS is made more competitive with local rivals rather then one team winning it every year, no promotion or relegation, and the fact that teams are spread thinly throughout the US rather then several teams being in each state, interest is going to be difficult to muster.

US soccer is growing at a steady pace, all the grass roots things are slowly evolving at a good pace. I do believe the USA will become a consistent top 20 team in the next 25 years.
There is no single #1 league or country in the world but a group of about 5 or 6. Soccer is too deep to ever be dominated forever by one nation, part of its beauty. However i am enjoying seeing the yanks slowly take on the sport the way it should be taken on, by this I mean instead of simply ch****** money at it and buying everything the base of US soccer is coming through from the kids and slow acceptance of it as a serious sport.
Just like the rest of the world would take a long long time to become as good at Baseball so it will take the yanks with soccer. Soccer requires history, tradition, infrastructure and depth that only comes from a decent lenght of time in the sport.

Give me a break the US will never have a good football league that's all bull....most of the people in the states don't even know what football is anyways....

<< University education is important, but America will never have a successful league when more importance is put on education then the sport. >>


I agree that is a strange dilemna for the development of soccer in America. And here's a strange thing to say on a board devoted to soccer/football: I'd rather that the kids pay attention to their education than to the sport!

Why? Well, for one thing I'd want the kids to be able to make a good living in life once their soccer/football career is over... only a handful of them could ever become rich enough in the sport (and be smart enough not to throw their money around aimlessly while their playing) to live off of it indefinitely, or to make a huge living off of being a pro or college coach.

Also, the college education and atmosphere usually (not always, but usually) allows the athlete to see more of life than just playing a sport. It allows the person to be more well-rounded and have multiple interests, and not let one single thing be their whole life. I've heard stories (no joke!) of fans around the world commiting suicide just because their team didn't win a championship or something... to me, to even CONTEMPLATE suicide for ANY reason, much less for a SPORTS TEAM, is absolutely scary beyond words! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/frown.gif

I know that most fans aren't THAT fanatical, but still it makes a drastic point!


-G




[This message has been edited by Goodsport (edited 11-28-1999).]

For all you guys who write that money is not an issue in soccer,

You mean to tell me that all those players imported from other countries who ar playing in Europe don't go over there for the money? Yeah sure, the competition is excellent, but the bottom line is dollars.

Given the same opportunities, the MLS will become a competitve league.

US soccer is growing. The MLS has money, but the teams are not allowed to spend millions of dollars on a top young soccer stars.

Whether we deny this because of fear that the US will dominate in this sport, like it dominates in most other sports, we have to accept the fact that in the near future, the United States will be mentioned in the same sentence with Italy, Brazil, England, and the other excellent soccer countries.

Only time will tell...

NASL already was one of the best leagues in the world with Pele and Backenbauer.
I don't think that it will be the same in 20 years.
Of course, players like Ravelli, Mattheus and others are pretty good but they are veterans.
I dont think that young players like Raul, Owen, Shevchenko, Buffon will come to USA to play soccer. Still, most Americans think that soccer is a boring game and soccer
will never be the first sport in USA.


Although, Americans are known because of spending money on world's sport talent...

As an American, I think there is no way that the US League will ever become dominant, nor would I ever want it to. Part of the beauty of the sport is the internationality.

One thing MLS has done right is focus on grooming American players. NASL was not able to do this for numerous reasons. MLS is slowly succeeding at this aspect, IMHO.
I can't see them ending this policy to bring in waves of foreign stars. The quality of the foreign players will slowly increase, as will the number of teams, but the league will always focus on US players.

-A lesson being learned in Europe at the moment. England in particular is debating this issue more and more each season. (See Ginola's recent comments...)

Just one word on the changes in MLS. They are a big positive step, but what the heck is the point in having two 5 minute "Golden Goal" overtimes? I think they will find that the "Golden" goals will be rare indeed.

20 years,
your already 120 behind sorry no chance, not even in the next 120 years.

So many hundred of millions of stereotypical american fans of NHL, NFL, NBA and baseball will for probably another 100 yrs see soccer as a dumb sport, which means soccer won't get much more recognition, which means throughout next century the American league will suck and the national team will suck.

hahahahahahaha... Sorry... are you serious??

Why can't american people admit that they suck at something??

They won`t admit they suck at another thing you mean. Australia recently Beat the US in Baseball a sport that only they give a **** about so get that into ya.

Are you saying that they should scrap the MLS and leave me with no live Division 1 soccer/football to watch? http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/frown.gif


-G

In 20 years the U.S. will have the greatest football league in history????
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!
More chance of platting piss!!!

Actually in 20 years the stupid MLS won't even exist. Why? Because soccer is the best sport in the world but not in America. In America, baseball will. HAHA. Why even have mls now? It's nothing but insulting the true sport of soccer.

Goodsport,
The MLS should stay, i don`t know why people are saying it Shouldn`t. Every country should have a league because there are football fans in every country it doesn`t matter how crap the MLS is it should remain. Just look at the spanish Premira that is crap football but that hasn`t been scraped.

MLS will be the best league in the world in 20 years time.
From the man who brought us
England 5 - 0 Scotland
Yah eggit !

The MLS will get popular when they have some famous players, and I don't mean some Mexican player, Carlos Valderama or losers like Lothar Matthaus.
And by the way, the only reason why those old players are coming to MLS is for high salary, not to promote the game, cause the US will never like soccer much anyway.

I love the way the USA think there so good at sport, I only sport there good at are the games no other Country cares about, and when a team wins the Super Bowl they call them selfs World Chamions, NO THEY ARE NOT. Silly Silly people.

Hey Europeans, we all are forgetting one very important thing. Just imagine how American people watch football, or any other sport like basketball, hockey, etc. In one hand chips - in other hand coca-cola - and somewhere between hamburger. And which player would like to play there - no songs, no rockets, torches and NO SMOKE. Boring!
Yeah.

Money is an important factor but I believe that tradition is just as important. You can see that in France and Germany. They have very good teams and many of them also have a lot of money but the good players still go to Spain or Italy, not because of the money but because the teams there have a name.

Why are u even discussing this REALLY Stupid topic...don't get - Sorry.

Its just not in there blood to injoy the game we do. I went to a game in the U.S and there was no singing or even anything close to it. It was CRAP. I would not go to football if i lived over there.

I disagree on the money issue. Most of the foreign players that are coming to MLS do not come for high salaries, because the salaries are NOT that high. Players like Valderrama and Matthaus come because after a lifetime of playing the sport they love surrounded by obsessed fans and cruel media criticism they see the MLS as a nice way to close out their career. They can play the game they love, while teaching it to some young players without being hunted down everytime they walk out the door.

POOR AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen a few MLS games. American soccer is basketball played with feet. There's a lot of running, kicking, long balls, fouls but seems like little forethought, build-up or coordination like you see in Holland, Italy, Spain, etc. It seems to me that if they are to develop as a footballing nation they will have to learn to appreciate the strengths of the good footballing countries. But with American distrust of the foreign, how can this happen? They'll develop the day names like Juventus and Bayern Munich become house-hold names in America, like they are in the rest of the world. But that seems a long way off.

Well if this happens I will be sick. But I doubt it would and if it did then it would not realy be american because it would have players from all arownd the world in it. Plus I don't think players like Beckham etc would go to America. They are not that stupid

Maybe... Gazza is comming. And this might be beginning.
By the way, there used to be some very good players in the 70's like pele, beckenbauer, and eusebio in the USA. The americans can buy every player if they want to.
Nowadays, the parents are more in favor in football(soccer) than the american football because of less probability of injury. And there are more real american fans of MLS than some years ago. They might invest more money to bring every players in the world in some years as they did in 70's.

However, the bad premonition of the US soccer is that the Americans like Women soccer than men's. What a shame!

The reason that the MLS won`t make it is not anything to do with quality it`s because you`ll see Football, soccer sorry as simpily a sport where to the Majority of the football world, it is LIFE!!!

CELTIC FC 4 LIFE!!!

Then the majority of the world is missing out on a lot of life.

And the rest is missing out on Football, your choice!

football is indeed a way of life...this doesnt mean that your not going to do other things it just means its the #1 priority...in the u.s kids only play the sport that is on tv,when a season for one sport ends they will play the sport wich season just begun so they will switch from basketball to baseball just like that no real passion there .In the rest of the world football is played every day year round non stop.I even heard a story about some polish prisoners during world war 2 that would play football in jail!!! they even had their own league going in there talk about passion and a way of life!!! That is why "soccer" will never be football !!!

Edoardo,
I`ll drink to that,
cheers.

Then all I can say is it must feel really terrible when teams like Brazil, Germany, England, etc. have lost to those mere hobbyists from the USA. I mean, the USA shouldn't even come close, considering for the rest of the world it is "life."

BTW, I find it interesting, Goonerbhoy, that someone writing from Australia would see the world that way, being that soccer, as I believe it is also called there down under, is not exactly the national pastime.

Your damn right on that !!! the team will be critisised for months in various newspapers, radiosatations, tv, and in any place fans gather to discuss footy be it a pub or a bus stop..the coach gets it the worst then players that made mistakes.footy can be a cruel game ,one day your a national hero the next your public enemy #1.can you immagine what would have happened if England would have lost to Scotland by a larger margine and been left out the Eurocup....the coach would have had to been escorted out of the stadium by a fully armed swat team...when you see international footy why do you think they have armed soldiers instead of policemen or security guards...in the u.s bruce arena can put any one in the national team and no one would care any where else even in under developed third world countries this becomes public concern...when sampson left john harks out the team before world cup 98 no one seemed to care,even that he was left out in favor of foreign players barely three day u.s citysens who couldnt have the same pride in wearing the u.s national shirt...why do you think Romario was left out the world cup in France with two days remaining for their opening game instead of leaving him out in Brazil before they went to france...It is many details like these that keep the u.s soccer from becoming football,and your fans from seeing it for more than just another sport.

[This message has been edited by Edoardo (edited 12-04-1999).]

Armed guards?!? Death threats (I know you didn't say that, but I've heard cases of that around the world)?!? Suicides over team's losses (again, something I've heard, not something you said)?!?

Thank GOD that Americans don't have THAT much passion... I hope that it NEVER comes to that here!!! As much as I love the game, it's JUST A GAME! I would NOT be willing to threaten or hurt other HUMAN BEINGS (YES, that's what other coaches, players and fans are, after all) over A GAME (or for ANY reason, for that matter)!!!


-G




[This message has been edited by Goodsport (edited 12-04-1999).]

Amen to that one, Goodsport!

Edoardo, you make my points for me.

And those losses to the US hobbyists are becoming more and more common. If the US will never be able to reach that "football" level you speak of, then how is it that the USA is able to now play competitively with most teams in the world? There are a few world powers that I'd say still dominate, but even they have experienced losing to a bunch of hobbyists.

Tell me something... when Brazil has lost in the World Cup, I've read stories of people killing themselves in despair. How many of those Brazilian players would kill themselves when something bad happens to an average Brazilian citizen? NONE.

mmmm....
In MLS Salaries are very poor; it all depends on attendancies, and, as you all know, attendancies are poor in US. The only teams that gather some public are NE Revolution, San Jose Clash, DC United

Columbus, Chicago and LA have done ok too.

The Florida teams, Dallas, and KC are struggling to get attendance. Of course the Metrostars are the biggest failure in every regard.

-Failure in New York...very unfortunate for the league in many ways.

Well I have to say some of the replies here are as about as ignorant as some Americans are toward football. The MLS or the U.S. national team will not be the best in the world and I wouldn't ever expect (or need) it to be. But that does not mean that we couldn't rise to a very respectable level WHICH we already are doing. If Brazil, Italy, England and anybody else were beating the U.S. 10-0 then maybe you could say we are a crap team. We do not suck... We're actually better than many other countries who have been playing much longer. That says a lot about Americans...we are constantly striving for excellence. That doesn't mean we have to be #1 rah! rah! (it gets boring being #1 at everything anyway haha) competing and making life difficult for you will be much more fun! You people forget the fact that even though football may not be #1 in the U.S. our population is so big that even if a fraction of it follows the sport, THAT is comparable to many other smaller countries in the world.

The World Cup did wonders here and so is the MLS. The best thing for the MLS is foreign influence whether it's coaches and/or players. Look at your own leagues, there are several foreign players in them, duh! As the MLS gains more influence it will progress as a football league. As it builds on it's history it will create tradition. That is what is lacking compared to leagues around the world like the English Premier, Serie A etc. etc. It is one of the things I have always admired about football (especially European) is the long tradition of the clubs and the cups. You can't build that overnight. But we're working on it. (Go D.C. United!) They're even picking names like traditional clubs. Relegation & promotion may not be far off as the A-League could be used as such. And as the league grows and expands then you will have more regional rivalries. Again foreign influence will go along way toward shaping this league (or a few fans like myself!).

Speaking of foreign influence you people forget how you are infiltrating our country with growing numbers (political immigration issue being put aside here!) The latin population alone will be the biggest in the near future. This can only do wonders for the MLS. There will be more fans who are passionate about the sport. The crowds at D.C. United and a few other clubs are really into it with chants. Now we're not out of control like you Italians and S. Americans but that is because we are more civilized when it comes to sports. (if you ever put as much passion into your country as you do into football maybe you will rise to our level haha, football= downfall of British Empire, something to think about!).

You also ignore the fact that football has had a strong growing grassroots level for the last 20 years. That's the only way we could have put a team with players like Harkes, Jones, Lalas and others up against the likes of Brazil with 1-0 results. Not too shabby for so called beginners. England created the game and LOOK where they are now. Not even a tier 1 nation. Parity in football is not far off as more of the smaller (footballing) nations build their leagues and develop their players. The fact that anyone could beat anyone will be more prevalent. Who would have thought until recently that Croatia (not Holland, Italy, England or Argentina) could finish third in the World Cup.

Now as far as money goes that will not have an effect until the MLS has enough of a following and some tradition behind it. I personally think Europe is where it's at if you're a player and then S. America. That's where I would want to play and that won't change for some time.

Fan interest here is growing. More people know about football here than you ignorant fools would care to acknowledge. Football coverage is on t.v. more than it ever was before. It could be better yes...give it time. Some people even goto pubs here to watch it. The Premier League is the most popular here but Germany, Italy and even Chile get coverage here too. The passion is growing, slowly, but it is growing. The interest is here it will just take some time so be wary, we might sneak up on you!

Is it true that fans in other countries fast and don't stuff their faces at matches? I doubt it! I saw plenty of people at the Premier League games I went to with fish and chips in one hand and bangers in the other (not too mention all the pints consumed before hand, Guinness please!) And I bet they're eating some kind of stuffed tortilla by the thousand (or whatever you eat down there) in S. America! Haha, what idiotic comments you children come up with.

Oh yeah, there is the World (American) Football League in Europe which is a minor league for the NFL (we KNOW you like the cheerleaders!)...so that makes the Superbowl winner a World Champion (in THIS sport) so as not to be confused with the collegiate winner known as the National Champion. How little you know silly silly person...

While I don't always agree with the tone of your post, FIFAfreak, I do agree with many of your points.

...Except the NFL one was a big stretch.

NFL Europe is basically a second level spring scouting combine for the NFL. The NFL runs it, and most of the players are American. The players seem to be mostly players struggling to try to get into the NFL, or back into it.

The fan base in Europe is tiny or nonexistant. I have watched a few games at times, and frankly I find it sad. The NFL is trying to shove itself down the throats of people that really couldn't care less if it existed or not. It's embarrassing.

American Football is a sport I enjoy at times, but it is not and never will be a "world" sport.

I don't think the NFL thing is too much of a stretch. I think you can call the Superbowl Champion the World Champion because it is the best league in the world that plays THAT PARTICULAR sport. That was my point.(I forgot the Canadians too, but that is another minor league to the NFL as well! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/redface.gif)

We do the same in baseball, why? Because Major League Baseball is the TOP level of that sport in the world. If you are player, no matter what your nationality (Japanese, Cuban, Australian etc.) that is where you want to be playing (for all the same reasons a football player would want to play in Europe, the money is there, the fanbase is there, the tradition is there). Most people here only think of them as Superbowl Champs anyway. "World Champs" is usually a creation of people trying to sell t-shirts.

I agree with your observation of the World League. I guess they assume it will catch on and it has to some degree, but it is still a bad idea. It's just a way of allowing younger talent (just out of college) to develop in a different environment. Europe as an incentive perhaps, I don't know...

FIFAfreak,

Perhaps if those NFL Europe teams entered the NFL and competed for the Super Bowl trophy with the current NFL teams, then I still doubt that the Super Bowl winner could honestly be called "World Champion"... but they could accurately be called "North-Atlantic Champion". http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

As for everything else you wrote - you are absolutely right on the money! Excellent post!!! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif


-G




[This message has been edited by Goodsport (edited 12-08-1999).]

Nope i think your wrong there...to be a world champion you must beat teams from other countries in the whole f'ing world...not states in your own country...in a top european league like serie A (where the majority of the bad ass footballers play)if a team wins they dont consider them selves World Champions as this only occurs in the U.S because people like you belive it ...silly silly freak...On another note i saw this comic strip in the newspaper that had u.s fans cheering the mens team and they had a sign that read "you play like a girl" and one person was telling another "remember when this used to be an insult" so what do you american fans think of this ...

So now the winners of the Italian League is the best team in the World, because it is the better league? (Just an example)
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

You call it World Champions because for many americans, USA is the world.

"Lord"...For many Americans, yes... but not this one.

Edoardo, I'm very proud of our US women's team. They are pioneers in helping to make soccer/football truly a complete "world" sport. Men are only half the population, you know.

I think what they did this summer was wonderful for the sport worldwide, and good for the growth of soccer in the US... for men and women. I just wish US Soccer had had it's act together as a whole! Right after the Women's World Cup, the men's team played quite respectably in their summer tournament but because of idiotic TV contracts, none of the matches were carried nationally on TV. Commercially, a big opportunity was missed. MLS dropped the ball a bit too, in my opinion.

If playing like a girl means to play with heart and determination... to play without diving and flopping at the slightest touch...(The men's teams could learn a lot about sportsmanship from the women.) to be champions.... I'd say it's a compliment.

Obviously my point is being lost on you guys. First you could ONLY say the winner of Italian League is the best in the world IF it was the ONLY league in the world playing football...it is clearly not the only one or the best, there is also the English Premier, Bundesliga, La Liga, Brazilian etc. (That's why a World Club Cup would be a great tournament)

Now if there was another (american football) league in the world on the SAME LEVEL as the NFL (which there isn't) then it would be stupid to call the Super Bowl winner a world champion because you would need a playoff between the two to decide. Understand now? Probably not...

Just keep up the diving and flopping in football (you ought to be ashamed of yourselves) if that's what makes you the best then you're out of your mind. Serie A owes as much to import players as any other league, the Italian national team has sunk just like the English (so what does that say about your homegrown talent eh) And the rest of Serie A from Perugia on down to Cagliari is total crap. Serie A is great to watch (I wouldn't mind seeing more of it here) when the top 7 or 8 teams play because that's where the money is and hence some of the best players.

I'll say this: when professional hockey started out some 100 years ago that league was the best in the world and there was really no competition, yet the champion won the trophy whose name was Stanley Cup, not World Cup. And players when they win the Cup don't wave their finger and yell "We are the world champions!" But then it is more of a Canadian league...

So yes, I think the true reason for this World Series, World Champions syndrome is that America in general, and especially the sports press here looks as sports in USA as all there is in the world thats worth watching. Just look at what ESPN calls athletes of the century! They are all from USA(no im not exaggerating 100 percent USA citizens, plus a horse!)

FIFAfreak, I get your point. I just think it's kind of a moot point. If you want to form a National Tidleywinks League, and no one else in the world cares enough to have a tidleywinks league you can call yourself the World Champion if you like.

And although I'm an American, I do find some truth to the arguments on here about American attitudes. MLB's championship is the "World Series"... the Yankees call themselves the World Champions. There actually are baseball leagues around the world. I don't know if you noticed, but the last few times MLB has sent "All-star" teams to play a series against the Japanese All-star teams, the results have been mixed, ...I think even leaning toward the Japanese.

Australia won a recent youth international tournament, over the USA.

Would the New York Yankees beat the Japanese League champions? Perhaps... but the point is they haven't.
*********************************
PolishPower,
I wouldn't exactly call ESPN the pinnacle of sports journalism!
ESPN has only been around for about 20 years. What the heck do they know about the century?
They are likely to pick the 100 athletes that most interest their target demographic audience. American males. It's about ratings, selling commercials, and money.

The difference between the US and the "normal world" is that in the U.S it's a buisness venture
anywhere else the motto "Football is more than life or death,it's a big piss-up as well" would be pretty accurate

fifafreak, Italia is a three time world champ and have been second place at least twice...as of lately there still a good team in 94 they got to the final with an injured team and in 98 they lost in penaltys to the home team wich is always the favorite..how coud you say their not doing good ...im not going to argue with you about serie A because i have come to the conclusion that you are an a-hole and are just trying o piss people off...before i forget there are baseball leagues in the carabeean and in mexico and no matter how much they $uck this doesnt mean that they may "never" beat a u.s team and the u.s team has to beat them to prove themselves and now a days guess where a lot of the mlb talent is coming from....

FIFAfreak... One more thing...
In your own words, you refer to the NCAA Football Champions as "National" champions...
Using your own logic, since the NCAA Champs are the only top level collegiate American football champs anywhere in the world, shouldn't you be lobbying the world press to start calling them the "College WORLD Champions" in the future? I mean, the NCAA baseball Champions are... they win the "College World Series." :-)

Give it up.
It's a stupid argument.
We all come up with dumb ones sometimes...
even someone with your obviously higher intellect.
;-)

It is a moot point JS because personally I could care less about the NFL. It's very boring and has no where near the passion or excitement that the collegiate level has (similiar to soccer). I would agree with you about baseball. It is more of a world sport NOW so still calling it the World Series might not be the best idea. But again when baseball started (back in the 1800s) we were the only ones playing it until recently.

Polish I don't disagree with what you said but that reminds me of the old competitor league to the NHL. What did they call themselves? The World Hockey League (which it wasn't). Why? Because National was already taken and World sounds better... it comes down to marketing in the end. The NHL however is not as Canadian as you think (probably more Russian these days!) But I know what you were trying to say. The thing about hockey is that it always has been a world sport and there is a world championship. The NHL just happens to be the best pro league in the world so all the players flock to it.

No Edoardo, I am not here just to piss people off. Take a look at some of the idiotic and ignorant posts from others above, that's what they're here for. I guess sometimes the truth (about Serie A) hurts doesn't it? My point about the Italian national team is that they haven't performed that great in the 90's (funny how you didn't mention the Euro tournaments). Maybe they will fare better this year.

Now about your baseball comment, sure there is plenty of talent coming from other parts of the world and maybe the Yankees (even though I hate them) should play other teams around the world "to prove themselves" I'll agree with you there. We could also take your statement about baseball and reverse it for us U.S. football fans:

"there is a football league (& team) in the U.S. and no matter how much they $uck this doesnt mean that they may "never" beat a foreign team and the foreign has to beat them to prove themselves"

Thanks for the good point.

You're point is lacking clarity on that last bit.

"there is a football league (& team) in the U.S. and no matter how much they $uck this doesnt mean
that they may "never" beat a foreign team and the foreign has to beat them to prove themselves"

I'm assuming you mean soccer...
It gets confusing to say US football when you were just talking about the NFL. (If you are still talking about the NFL then you are contradicting your own earlier statements, but I don't think you are.)

It appears that you are extrapolating Edoardo's logic from baseball to the MLS teams... and the fact that not too many matches with European powers are taking place...
but this doesn't work exactly because no one is referring to DC United as "World Champions." Understand? The NY Yankees call themselves "World Champions." You could MAYBE make a poor argument that Man U shouldn't be called World Champions after winning that Cup title in Tokyo... but I haven't heard them calling themselves that.

Can the future winner of the World Club Cup consider themselves champions over the MLS? I'd say yes. -Because the MLS tried to qualify and unfortunately lost out in the semis to a Mexican squad... but they had their chance.

Yes JS it does get confusing but I chose not to "offend" anyone by using soccer except once for clarification http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

In that last statement I was talking about soccer. And yes D.C. United does not call themselves World Champs, that's obvious and wasn't the focus. My point is that a lot of the people who posted here would easily write off the U.S. national team and league as not being very good. That's obviously not the case. The same arrogance the foreign posts complain about regarding other American sports is just as present in their attitude toward American soccer. That's where this logic backfired ("no matter how much they $uck this doesn't mean that they may "never" beat a foreign team) because you could say that about the MLS or the U.S. national team. Yes D.C. United had their chance and lost to a Mexican team, fair enough. (and you think Man U fans aren't claiming to be the best in the world? HA HA, wakeup call!, wait until January)

But you could also say the same about Serie A fans yapping constantly about how their league is the "best" in the world. If that's the case then (insert your favorite top 7 Serie A team here) is the best club team in the world. Well, not so eh? They didn't qualify for the World Club Championship either and I guess Italians will be screaming bloody hell because they won't have a team in Brazil this January. Too bad.

In the end if everyone is so passionate about football (soccer) then they really shouldn't care who uses the word "world" for their own sports (I'll say it again - Marketing, i.e. selling t-shirts etc.) It may be wrong but I could care less if the Italians or anybody else has a tiddleywink world champion http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

I think we are pretty much in agreement now...
how boring! :-)

Of course another problem with ALL these international club championships, including the Champions League, is that they are all taken from the past year's champions.
The champions last year aren't always the best the next.
Prime examples would be Real Madrid... hardly showing the best form in Spain right now!
or AC Milan and Fiorentina who are 6th and 8th in Serie A at the moment.

I'm going to pick on your criticizing the depth of Serie A... you mentioned that there are about 7 top Serie A clubs and that the rest are "total crap."

Well, if you look at the table, you'll find that Bari is currently ahead of Fiorentina...
and Perugia, Udinese, Bologna, and Lecce and even Torino are all within 3 points of Fiorentina. These teams are no worse than the Wimbledon, Southampton, Bradford City, Coventry City, Middlesboro, Aston Villa, etc's of the Premiership.
I would guess that you, like me, get most of your news information off of English language sites... (American or UK) and therefore the English League just gets more coverage than the Italian.

Bari may be the exception so I didn't mention them...and to be within 3 points of Fiorentina this year isn't saying much when they're 8th! Udinese did get by Leverkusen, not too convincingly (2-2 on away goals) but I'll give them that. Then again Roma, one of the Serie A "leaders" just scraped by (1-0 on aggregate) Newcastle who is 7th from the bottom in the Premiership and way off form. And Parma well they scraped by too over Sturm Graz. I can't say I'm that impressed, yet. The only thing I did like was Fiorentina beating Man U. Does that mean the Perugias, Bolognas, Torinos etc, could beat Man U. (or Leeds & Arsenal) too, I doubt it but who knows?

My main point is when have those clubs currently finished consistently above the likes of Juventus, Inter, AC, Parma and Lazio? Sure you have the rare occasional exceptions like Udinese or Bari, Sampdoria in the early 90's that may break the top 6 or 7 and potentially finish higher, but you have to go back to the mid to late 80s and earlier to see any consistent mix up at the top with the likes of Napoli, Sampdori & Torino. But where are these clubs now, at the bottom or relegated to Serie B. What Serie A could use is a Sunderland. A recently promoted team making a run at the top.

I do agree with you about the previous years champions not being the best going into the European tournaments the next year (Real Madrid) The Spanish League is actually kinda interesting with some different clubs taking turns at the top. I'd like to see a good race in the Bundesliga too. I just think Serie A and the Scottish League need a good shake up. It gets boring see Celtic & Rangers blowing away the rest of the field every year.

[This message has been edited by FIFAfreak (edited 12-11-1999).]

And how often have Coventry, Southampton, Bradford City, and Watford, and Sheffield Wednesday finished above Man U and Arsenal?

I'd argue that a Bologna or Perugia is just as likely to beat Leeds, Man U or Arsenal as Coventry City or Middlesboro are. Not very likely, but it happens every once in a while.

As for Newcastle and Roma...
Newcastle may be 7th from the bottom, but they are one of the hottest climbers on the table right now. They are playing the best they've played in about 3 years right now.

Anyway... what I was trying to say is that in Italy, from top to bottom, the stats don't agree with your quality assessment. The spread in points from top to bottom is comparable to the Premiership.

I'll agree that from year to year, the upper, middle and lower class teams seem to stay more consistanly in their range, but I argue against the gap in play being as huge as "total crap."

I won't argue on the Scottish League. The dominance of Celtic and Rangers is too obvious to ignore, and because of it the Scottish League IS largely ignored.

What Sunderland is doing is wonderful for the sport. I hope they don't fade at the end. I think they are also showing that if you concentrate on just one competition it makes a difference.
But to see a team succeeding and competing with the Big Spenders is very refreshing!
Same thing for Spain. Unfortunately, I don't get to watch more than one Spanish match every few weeks, so I don't get as good of a look at the teams, other than Real Madrid and Barcelona.

PersianBoy...
15,000?
I notice you live in San Jose...
your own team there averaged 14,959 a game this season. Not bad for a team that didn't even make the playoff cut.
So if they can raise that by 41 people you'll talk about them succeeding?

The league average attendance was 14,282 a game, and that includes Miami and KC. There is a drop of about 4000 a game from 10th to 11th in attendance. (Dallas was 10th with 12,211. Miami 11th with 8,689. KC a pitiful 8,183.)

DC, LA, Columbus, NE and Chicago all averaged above 16,000.

Here's a question for you...
You live in San Jose, California. You refer to the USA as if it's not your country. Are you not American? (I have no way of knowing.)

Fifafreak,before you critisize the Serie A take a look at your own league MLS. like Milano or Juve D.C United have the best players in their league hence they have won i belive three out of four championships,so it must get boring watching the same finals each year ,i guess this varies depending on each persons likes... the rest of the serie A teams that are from 7th place down does not mean they $uck its just that their up against some of the topnotch teams the same goes for teams in la liga and the premiership...

( http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/redface.gif Boy is this topic full! I'm so far from the first post I'm afraid no one will see me down here at the bottom!

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I don't think the U.S. can have the best league, even in 20 (hundred, thousand, whatever) years.
They can have the money and resources, but MLS could only be top league if most North Americans really loved it. And they don't.
Football has always been a minor sport in U.S.A., because there's basket, baseball and other sports in which N.Americans can be better.
Think about it, if you were raised in the U.S. which sport would you choose? Why soccer if you can show yourself much better with basket, for instance?
Besides, I think most of the N.Americans still think of soccer as an European or South American sport, and so they just dump it.
Football is now a business, and if you're a good business man (or woman), you'll only invest in something really popular.
But who knows? If man was able to go to the Moon, maybe "soccer" can still be a really popular sport in the states and...

naaaah!

HAHAHHA... it take you guys another 1000 years to succeed. First of all, try to get atleast 15000 for each game and then talk about succeed, lol..sorry, but i don't think it will ever work for US. PEACE