Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2009-10 Football Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an englishman living in the US I am familiar with both systems.

The biggest difference stems from the fact that most US sports are a closed system. For example, if you don't like the way the NFL does things there is no other league of comparable quality to which you can run to.

That is certainly not true for the MLS since there are many worldwide leagues. However, much of the structure (drafts/trades/etc) were mirrored on other US sports.

The difference in transfers between the football model and the US Sports model stems from the above difference. In the football model, of your team wants to acquire a player, it's a two step process. Negotiate with the team currently holding the players contact in order to buy out that contract, and then negotiate a new contract with the player. If either step fails then the player stays put.

In US sports, there is only one step, negotiate with the owning club. If you offer enough (either money, or usually a player going in the other direction) then the player's contract is simply transferred to your club, you do not need to negotiate a new contract with the player, and the player (unless they have a no-trade clause) cannot object to the move.

This is allowed, essentially, because US sports have an anti-trust exemption from the US government.

MLS has a problem in that it is a slave to two masters. It has to try to win over the US public, but it also wants to be taken seriously by the world footballing community. My opinion is that they would be better off trying for the later, rather than the former.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
For these reasons I think that the MLS Players Union will try to do things a little differently from the way things are usually done in US sport. But you may be right aloofman - perhaps the traditions of US sport are too powerful for even the world's biggest sport to change...MLS is already a very different league from any other football league. But in my opinion change will always be in the direction of football as the rest of the world plays it.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that I don't think the MLS players union has the kind of clout needed to negotiate that. It may well be that MLS needs to shift to a system that's more compatible with the rest of the soccer world, but are the team owners willing to give up that kind of control to do so? Seems like a hard sell to me.


swiftaw said:
This is allowed, essentially, because US sports have an anti-trust exemption from the US government.
Click to expand...

Officially, only major league baseball has an anti-trust exemption, which was last affirmed in Flood vs. Kuhn by the Supreme Court. But as a practical matter, even baseball's exemption doesn't really mean anything. The reserve clause (which bound a player to one team until the team decided otherwise) was struck down in the 1970s, giving the union the leverage to demand limited free agency. The fact that baseball players can't refuse to be transferred to another team is really just a product of the current labor agreements between the union and the team owners. The players agree to let the team trade them elsewhere, unless they negotiate some kind of no-trade clause into their individual contract.

The union could try to change this when negotiating the next collective bargaining agreement, but they have little reason to do so. Such a move would give the owners ways of altering expensive, long-term contracts that many teams get saddled with, while the players have an interest in making the teams pay those contracts.

The original anti-trust exemption was created to prevent a rival league from being formed to challenge the two existing major leagues. (The rival league at the time was called the Federal League, and it lasted only two seasons in the 1910s.) Again, as a practical matter, no such protection exists anymore for the major leagues. What prevents the formation of rival leagues and teams now is that it's just too expensive. All attempts to overtake the major baseball leagues have failed (except for the American League, which is now one of the two major leagues) for this exact reason.
 
My apologies, I meant the collective bargaining agreement rather than the antitrust exemption was responsible for most of the rules regarding contracts. If I'm correct, there are no collective bargaining agreements in place for any other football league in the world (or at least not the big european ones).


On a completely different note. Jaffa, you seem to have an imitator: https://forums.macrumors.com/members/114096/
 
swiftaw said:
MLS has a problem in that it is a slave to two masters. It has to try to win over the US public, but it also wants to be taken seriously by the world footballing community. My opinion is that they would be better off trying for the later, rather than the former.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, MLS found it necessary to adapt the game to US tastes to establish themselves, but I think their goal should be to ultimately make it as close to the world game as possible.

aloofman said:
What I meant is that I don't think the MLS players union has the kind of clout needed to negotiate that. It may well be that MLS needs to shift to a system that's more compatible with the rest of the soccer world, but are the team owners willing to give up that kind of control to do so? Seems like a hard sell to me.
Click to expand...

It is a hard sell. But if the league really want to become competitive internationally at a meaningful level when it comes to attracting talent they will have to adapt. perhaps when the league is finished expanding a people will be more receptive to change.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
I think you are right, MLS found it necessary to adapt the game to US tastes to establish themselves, but I think their goal should be to ultimately make it as close to the world game as possible... It is a hard sell. But if the league really want to become competitive internationally at a meaningful level when it comes to attracting talent they will have to adapt. perhaps when the league is finished expanding a people will be more receptive to change.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts here.

Since its founding in 1993, MLS has grown from 10 to 16 teams, in the United States and Canada, and has spawned both its own field players and keepers going to international play to some international players, in turn, joining MLS teams here. So too, MLS has fed our National Team and its relative success in World Cup qualification. I feel that in its very short lifespan, MLS has done quite well. Our MLS future appears sound...

But more important than that, in specific reference to your post above, you have to clearly understand that our MLS has to professionally compete, on an equal basis, with MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and a host of lesser professional sports, while many of the nations that you are comparing our MLS to, have only one primary professional sport that the nation largely subsidizes. So any comparison of the MLS to international play needs to keep this fact in mind.
 
It's true that many of USA's best players have had time in the MLS - BUT I believe that most of our best players like Tim Howard, Clint Dempsey and others have developed much farther by going to Europe than if they had stayed in the MLS. Landon Donovan, as good as he is, would be even better had he gone to Europe and stayed there.

That isn't to say that MLS does not produce good players - but we have to face the fact that if we want Americans to become truly world-class players the MLS can be only a stepping stone rather than a final destination. There is no shame in that - only a handful of nations can boast truly top-class leagues, and American soccer will always have to compete for resources and talent with bigger domestic sports powers.

Looking outward is a way for MLS to improve it's position in American sports. MLB, NBA and NFL are essentially confined to North America, while MLS can tap into international tournaments and a truly global pool of players. Also, immigrants from Latin America, Africa and Europe bring with them a hankering for the beautiful game. So rather than go head to head with the big three American sports, MLS can position itself as a domestic sport with a more international flavor.
 
Sky Sports News are just running a feature on the Premier League players whose nations will be in this Friday's World Cup draw. One of the players listed for Nigeria was our very own Seyi Olofinjana – however, despite him signing for us in the summer Sky still described him as being a Stoke City player. To compound matters, there was a clip showing him in action in a Hull City shirt... scoring against Stoke. Must try harder, Sky. :p

Meanwhile, Messi has won the Ballon d'Or, by quite a large margin apparently.

EDIT: FIFA have just announced that Ireland's request to be placed in next year's World Cup as a 33rd team has, unsurprisingly, been rejected.
 
Well done Messi...he certainly deserves it.

Ireland knew they'd never get a spot, but I suppose if I was in the same situation I'd do the same thing. In related news it looks like FIFA my punish Henry for the handball...but how?
 
World Cup Draw

Pot 1 (Seeds)
Brazil (1)
Spain (2)
The Netherlands (3)
Italy (4)
Germany (5)
Argentina (6)
England (7)
South Africa (85)

Pot 2 (Asia, North/Central America, Oceania)
Australia (24)
Japan (40)
Korea DPR (91)
Korea Republic (48)
Honduras (35)
Mexico (18)
USA (11)
New Zealand (83)

Pot 3 (Africa and South America)
Algeria (29)
Cameroon (14)
Côte d’Ivoire (19)
Ghana (38)
Nigeria (32)
Chile (17)
Paraguay (21)
Uruguay (25)

Pot 4 (Europe)
Denmark (27)
France (9)
Greece (16)
Portugal (10)
Serbia (20)
Slovakia (33)
Slovenia (49)
Switzerland (13)

World Ranking in parentheses.

Each world cup group with be made up of one team from each pot, subject to the following restrictions:
South Africa cannot be matched with one of the Africa teams in pot 3, only a South American team
Brazil and Argentina cannot be matched with one of the South American teams in pot 3, only an African team.

So, what do you think, what would a group of death look like? Brazil, Mexico, Ivory Coast, Portugal?
 
Jaffa Cake said:
Looking at it from an English point of view, being drawn against North Korea, Algeria and Switzerland would be ideal. Which means a draw pitting us against the US, Ivory Coast and Portugal beckons. :eek:
Click to expand...

I have this weird feeling that Portugal or France will end up in England's group.
 
Are the host team always seeded? Seems (at least until the draw is made) extremely lucky for South Africa...

If I was being a cynic (and when FIFA are involved it's very easy to be) I might wonder if this was a way to try and ensure host qualification for the 2nd round, helping to ensure full stadia on TV.

As for the seeding, shame we can't play both Hondras and NZ, just for banter with my pals :(
 
capoeirista said:
Are the host team always seeded? Seems (at least until the draw is made) extremely lucky for South Africa...

If I was being a cynic (and when FIFA are involved it's very easy to be) I might wonder if this was a way to try and ensure host qualification for the 2nd round, helping to ensure full stadia on TV.

As for the seeding, shame we can't play both Hondras and NZ, just for banter with my pals :(
Click to expand...

Yes, the host is always seeded.

Interesting, it used to be that the opening match of the world cup always used to feature the current world cup holder, but that seems to have changed so now the opening game seems to feature the host team. (Maybe is started once the world cup holder wasn't given an automatic qualification place)
 
Jaffa Cake said:
Looking at it from an English point of view, being drawn against North Korea, Algeria and Switzerland would be ideal. Which means a draw pitting us against the US, Ivory Coast and Portugal beckons. :eek:
Click to expand...

i wouldn't belittle switzerland ... they have a great squad at the moment with a tough fighting spirit.. one of the more uncomfortable teams from the last group

slovenia is very likely the weakest team but looking at group results still dangerous jsut like slovakia or serbia
 
The best draw from the neutral's perspective will be whichever group has France in it....

Group of death : Brazil, Mexico, Cameroon, France.

Can't wait for the draw! Some big teams are going home early this year, so every stage will be exciting.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
The best draw from the neutral's perspective will be whichever group has France in it....

Group of death : Brazil, Mexico, Cameroon, France.

Can't wait for the draw! Some big teams are going home early this year, so every stage will be exciting.
Click to expand...

I think Ivory Coast is better than Cameroon, especially with Drogba.
 
swiftaw said:
I think Ivory Coast is better than Cameroon, especially with Drogba.
Click to expand...

Well, Cameroon have Eto'o....I was torn between Ivory Coast and Cameroon, they are both dangerous.

Actually, take your pick...Pot 3 is chocked full of dangerous sides. Uruguay and Chile are no slouches either - on the day, most of the teams in that group have the potential to beat a top side.

Interesting that most Europeans seem to rank USA as a better team then Mexico....against European opposition that may be true, since USA has more pace and bigger players. But Mexico is superior with the ball on the ground, so I think they would have better luck against a smaller more technical side.

I hope we aren't drawn with France.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Well, Cameroon have Eto'o....I was torn between Ivory Coast and Cameroon, they are both dangerous.

Actually, take your pick...Pot 3 is chocked full of dangerous sides. Uruguay and Chile are no slouches either - on the day, most of the teams in that group have the potential to beat a top side.

Interesting that most Europeans seem to rank USA as a better team then Mexico....against European opposition that may be true, since USA has more pace and bigger players. But Mexico is superior with the ball on the ground, so I think they would have better luck against a smaller more technical side.

I hope we aren't drawn with France.
Click to expand...

I added the world rankings to the team list. Interestingly, unless South Africa get North Korea in their group, they will be the lowest ranked team in their group despite being the seeded team. I wonder when the last time the host didn't make it out of the group stages was.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Ah, interesting observation! South Africa almost need a miracle to avoid getting dumped out of the group stage.
Click to expand...

I just checked, and the host has never failed to make it out of the group stages in any of the previous world cups, so I am expecting South Africa to be drawn with North Korea, Uruguay, and Slovenia.
 
Well, with a favorable draw South Africa could squeak through...but they have to be the weakest team in the tournament besides the All Whites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back