Football Garden

Smaller Rulers Continued:

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:41:47 -0500

After my last post Dave Laidig from Footiebusiness and I got into a discussion going a bit deeper into the the relationship between MLS and local/club football culture (with particular reference to the Cascadia MLS clubs). The full thread is here.

I spent a while on one of my responses so I figured I’d post the best of it here to expand on what I was trying to get at in the first “smaller rulers” post:

So, my question is: As a supporter or fan of the professional game, do we approach this debate from a viewpoint of the “league” needing to be successful/sustainable, or; do we approach it from the viewpoint of building sustainable clubs/teams that raise the level of Division 1 soccer organically? Do we look at it from the top down, or from the bottom up?

It’s my sense that these two approaches produce a different set of priorities depending on which one you adopt. That’s where the Cascadia debate comes into play for me. At a business level, there’s a unique symbiotic relationship between supporters and the individual teams which MLS (which includes Por/Sea/Van ownership) took a dump on by making the trademark play. Legally, I haven’t seen a single analysis in MLS’s favor (at least based on U.S. TM law). And yet, the Cascadia supporters were criticized for not being sensitive enough to the “league’s” interests (not by you Dave, but by several others).

There’s no doubt the Cascadia teams have benefited by joining MLS. But so have the other MLS teams! Like the teams with the fans, the teams have a symbiotic relationship with one another. Financially, Por/Sea/Van are all pulling their weight and subsidizing the teams that have been in MLS for longer.

MLS’s single entity set up is effectively a formalization of hyper-structured symbiotic relationships between teams. Clubs give up a significant amount of control as part of the bargain to join up with other teams within the DI sanctioned entity. The coaches, players, fans and team staff are all effected by this bargain and the agreements under which MLS operates.

The nature of these relationships has changed over time. The Designated Player, Home Grown Player, and draft rules have all been implemented or changed from year to year to reflect the owner’s wishes for how they want the relationships to exist. Each time a new team joins or a new ownership group takes over an existing team, the relationships change a little bit.

The clubs are trying to put the best product they can on the field in spite of the league’s rules and regulations, not because of them. This all happens at the club level and coaches and owners get pissed all the time when the rest of MLS refuses to sign off on a personnel move that could help the team put a better product on the field. Remember this: http://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/mls/article/1278643–toronto-fc-s-hands-tied-by-meddling-mls-kelly

These rules and regulations don’t do a whole lot of good if nobody pays to see the show put on by the teams. Are people going to pay for a ticket or watch on tv because of MLS’s unique set of rules and regulations if the soccer being played doesn’t draw an audience on its own? Are their really folks out there that loooove single entity and the re-entry draft?

I’m not arguing that Seattle or any other current MLS team should ditch MLS if this Cascadia issue isn’t resolved to their liking (who knows, SEA may have been advocating to TM the Cascadia Cup). Rather, I’m advocating for a analytical shift in how we evaluate the relative value of what the “league” actually is and what it contributes vs. what the symbiotic relationship between the clubs and supporters contributes to the overall success and sustainability of Division 1 soccer in the U.S.

We need smaller rulers

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:49:00 -0500

There’s a scientific principle in several different types of measurement that basically goes: the smaller the ruler, the longer the measurement. If we wanted to draw a map of the Western coastline from the Mexican to the Canadian Border we could observe from distance through a telescope and obtain a potentially useful approximation of the length. However, if we wish to obtain a more precise measurement we could set out to use smaller measuring instruments, say a closer telescope measurement from a boat or even a length of rope set and reset along the coast itself.

Neither example is inherently better or more valuable than the other. It depends on the scale of the map we want to draw.

I was reminded of this principle by the recent debate over MLS’s action to file for trademark registration of the Cascadia Cup term/brand. Supporters groups for the Vancouver, Portland, and Seattle franchises have spoken out vehemently against MLS’s interloping behavior.

Given the history of the Cascadia Cup (it was started by the supporter’s groups while all three teams were outside of MLS) and MLS’s flimsy reasoning for filing the trademark registration (protecting from unidentified “outside” exploitation), I was surprised to see folks argue in support of MLS’s action and portray the supporter’s opposition as some petulant, self-absorbed political outburst.

There is an ideology, it seems, that putting our faith in MLS as the chief monetizer of all things soccer is the only way to avoid NASL style division 1 armageddon. MLS’s financial success and expansion, it goes, takes priority over things like observing ownership rights that belong to supporter’s groups, allowing players to be paid according to market value, or allowing competitive results to decide which clubs compete at the Division 1 level through a promotion/relegation system.

Of course, the “league” isn’t an independent entity governed by checks and balances designed to ensure transparency and accessibility, it’s an opaque joint venture managed by business owners. Some of whom decided at several points that the Pacific NW teams were not good bets for MLS expansion despite significant existing team and supporter infrastructure.

This aspect of the debate is the most interesting to me. Unlike every other MLS franchise, (with the sort of exception of the Earthquakes) the Whitecaps, Timbers, and Sounders existed successfully and were passed over multiple times before entering MLS. They had all forged identities and community support without MLS. The little details, the things that make a football club organic and real and not feel like a trip to a chain strip mall, many of those developed before the teams entered MLS.

There are reasons for the Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps success that don’t show up on the MLS balance sheet or in Don Garber’s state of the league address. As supporters and constituents of U.S. Soccer, I propose to you that we borrow the “smaller rulers” principle to understand not only the success of the Cascadia clubs, but how we should draw the map for our future progress.

The world outside of sport is showing us that small is beautiful and large, expanding, and interdependent bureaucracies can halt progress and bring the world to its knees.

Every day and night there are millions of people in the United States who go to parks or gyms or stadiums to watch and play football. Young and old, different cultures, ethnicities and economic backgrounds, all finding unique passion and joy in a life of football. The diversity is inspiring and astounding, each game or field possessing a unique mix of the millions of details that can go unnoticed by the uninformed or uninterested.

So, I submit to you that we have a choice: Do we celebrate the diversity and the details and show our appreciation by allowing the small to grow up through the ranks, the minor to become the major through competition? Or, do we put our faith in the slick and deliberate comfort of the “league’s best interests”, sticking with metrics for success that are divorced from the jagged and exciting realties of humanity and the rich footballing culture that exists at the grassroots level in the United States.

I find it fair to say that choosing one path or the other has significant consequences, many of which are not easily explainable or observable. I also submit to you that MLS and U.S. Soccer have been operating according to the latter path throughout MLS’s existence. It is important to understand the consequences of this path for our soccer pyramid. The league’s existence and expansion is a measure of success, but I ask that we consider the smaller, less readily observable and explainable realities as we consider our way forward.

A note about the podcast schedule (Updated 1/23)

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:03:00 -0500

UPDATE (1/23): Unfortunately the guest I had planned for the 1/23 podcast didn’t work out. Working to put together the next episode hopefully soon.

I’ve gotten a few notes wondering about the podcast schedule. I’m working on putting together the first podcast of 2013. I’m very excited about the guest and I think it will make for a compelling and educational conversation. That said, I want to mention that the podcast scheduling will be different for a little while.

I have a specific idea in mind for what I want the podcasts to convey via the format and guests that I ask to join the podcast. Currently, I don’t think it’s realistic to achieve that as often as twice a week. So, for the time being, I’ve decided to move away from the regular posting schedule and adopt a more sporadic schedule. I hate to do this because I’ve really enjoyed providing regular content for folks that enjoy the podcasts. But, I don’t want to sacrifice what I want to achieve with the podcast for the sake of regularly producing content.

Gatekeepers

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:20:00 -0500

The pitchforks are out for Sepp Blatter after he made some vague criticisms towards the current state of MLS. Although I may agree with the general sentiment, I don’t find Blatter’s remarks insightful or well informed by what’s taking place on the ground in the U.S. Unfortunately, I haven’t found much substance in the criticisms of Blatter’s remarks either.

Of all the rationalizations and explanations of the current state of MLS and U.S. Soccer prompted by Blatter’s comments, I haven’t seen any of the outraged journalists/fans/etc. go with the simplest and most effective comeback of all: “Say what you want Sepp, we’ll do our talking on the field.”

Instead, I’ve observed lots of talk about how MLS’s unique rules and structure are meaningful to ensure the league progresses at a reasonable pace and that low tv ratings are largely the result of competition with other major U.S. sports or international soccer leagues.

The beauty of football as a form of entertainment is that competition is a fairly reliable way to settle debates over quality. The World Cup is an open tournament. So is the CONCACAF Champions League and Club World Cup. Assuming good standing with the relevant governing bodies, the value of these events as spectacle is to settle questions of quality with competitive results. As things currently stand, none of Sepp Blatter’s whims or rants can keep the U.S. or an MLS team from stepping on the field and dropping a big F.U. to critics by winning a World Cup or the CONCACAF Champions League or the Club World Cup.

There are no gatekeepers in international competitions to prevent teams/nations from demonstrating their superiority at the highest levels.

And yet, we’ve convinced ourselves that our means to produce superior soccer are dependent on an elaborate network of interdependent gatekeepers to manage the health of our soccer system.

Instead of annual promotion and relegation to establish which clubs deserve to be at the highest level of the U.S. Soccer pyramid by virtue of their on field performances, we have Don Garber pitching PowerPoint presentations at community meetings in New York for a team that doesn’t exist.

Instead of youth development programs designed to foster professional skill and dedication we have a draft and centralized player allocation system that values parity and owner leverage over rewarding long-term development investment.

We glow over the prospect of providing the next golden parachute to whichever past their prime “big star” chooses New York over Beijing or Moscow, while willfully ignoring young players who have to take second jobs to make a living or who signed hyped up HGP contracts only to be unceremoniously cut a few years later.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, this way of doing things has consequences. We need look no farther than last season’s U.S. Open Cup to understand that our system might need tinkering to make sure we’re operating to the best of our abilities as a footballing nation.

Two MLS teams were knocked out by Division 4 Amateur teams. Four MLS teams were defeated by Division 3 USL Pro teams. Three MLS teams were defeated by Division 2 NASL teams.

Are we reassured by the MLS/U.S. Soccer gatekeepers insistence that MLS is the best we have to offer in this country and getting better? Can we chalk up nine of sixteen MLS teams losing to coincidence and a bit of fatigue or bad luck?

Blatter’s comments might have lacked sophistication, but it’s not like he’s trying to ban the U.S. from playing in the World Cup or threatening to decertify U.S. Soccer. U.S. Soccer/MLS still has the opportunity to shut up the haters at every international/club tournament we enter. After all, people aren’t tuning in to see who Blatter thinks is the best, they’re watching because the competitions are open to all to prove who is the best.

As we take aim on becoming one of the best footballing nations in the world, how can we justify a system where we place faith in the judgment of gatekeepers over the organic process of open competition as our rudder towards achieving superiority?

This isn’t to question people like Garber’s intelligence or judgment or diminish their contribution to the longevity of MLS. By most accounts MLS wouldn’t exist were it not for Garber’s enterprise and his work should never be ignored or understated. Rather, I merely seek to reaffirm a simple premise that underscores the entire debate about MLS and the national team: we play the games for a reason.

Podcast: Brent Goulet

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:59:00 -0500