From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: US Soccer News
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:35:20 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <C0F57G.13B@ulowell.ulowell.edu> tfragala@cs.ulowell.edu writes:

> In article <1993Jan5.075249.26226@leland.Stanford.EDU> melcat@leland.Stanford.EDU (Melind Joseph John) writes:
> >What is the best solution to establishing soccer teams in the US?  When
> >I hear the term "national league" I envision something akin to the NASL, 
> >a large league in which the teams really do not have any substantial tie
> >to the community in which they play.  To me, at least, this does not appear
> >to be a profitable solution.
>
> Absolutely! I had the same thoughts. Are we missing something or doesn't
> this just make sense?!? Every point made above is valid and right to me. In
> fact, there are some good regional leagues right now. There's even a decent
> one up here in MA/RI which I happen to play in. It is a Portugese league in
> that every team is sponsored by a Portugese club. Every player receives some
> gratifications ($) and the top players get around $300-$500 per game. We have
> former pros from Europe, S. America, and a lot of former college players. 
> The league's been around for decades and everybody's happy and it works. I know
> if USSF got off their ass and organized small regional leagues with small local
> clubs it would work. Overhead would be low, a small fan base would grow, it 
> would be a great foundation for US soccer etc. Its not friggin rocket science. 
> I'm not saying its trivial but with hard work I think it could be done.

As I've said before, regional leagues featuring semi-pro and amateur players
will be almost as important as the professional national league. But don't
ignore the top of the US soccer pyramid for it! A "showcase" league with only a
few teams, all of international class fielding US (& Canadian) national team 
players and some well-known foreign stars is absolutely essential if soccer is 
to become truly popular. Only then will talented US-born players have a place to
play after college. Seriously, does anyone expect the stars of tomorrow to play
in a local Portuguese-American league for "$300-$500 per game?!" Eric Wynalda
pulls down fifty times as much money in Germany, and he is undoubtedly getting 
more satisfaction from playing in one of the world's best soccer leagues. The 
USSF has no choice but to try to emulate what the English, Germans, Italians,
French, Mexicans and now also the Japanese have been doing all along, namely
create a top-class _national_ league. Surely having, say, Harrisburg
(champions of the Eastern Italian-American League) play Little Rock (the
Southern League champions) for the national championship is not going to 
capture the imagination of the American public...? At least the WSA/ASL
championship had no impact whatsoever, and these are the kind of leagues you
seem to prefer.

>   But it seems the USSF has stars in their *$%#! eyes and want to wait until
> AFTER (friggin brilliant) the World Cup and start a national league like
> NBA, baseball, etc. with billion dollar clubs with huge travel and payroll
> expenses and playing in 50K+ size stadiums. The NASL all over again dammit.
> I want a huge league more than anything but lets be logical about it. 

Logical? The national team is averaging 30,000+ for their top matches, the
1984 Olympic tournament was a near-sellout, the World Cup is expected to be a
sellout, the NASL had average attendances of 10,000-15,000 for ten years...
I would say the time is right for another try.

> Besides
> I don't want to wait until 1995 for a true soccer league. Non-americans reading
> this: as you can imagine, it TOTALLY SUCKS not having soccer here in US and
> being a second class citizen because I happen to love soccer. I grew up being
> ridiculed because I played soccer and not the REAL sports. And I like baseball,
> football, b-ball, etc. Now I'm pissed because the powers that be are jerking
> off and screwing up a great chance to start a solid league in US. Maybe I'm
> wrong and we should just wait, but I had to get this shit off my chest.
>   Thats it...sorry to drone on so so long. Please post opinions pro/con.

A "huge" league does not have to be as "huge" as you think. To begin with, the
number of clubs will be kept small at first. Only cities where the NASL was
successful (about nine or ten) and a couple mega-markets like LA and Chicago.
Extremely few players as well, all top-class. If we let in hordes if weak teams
supported by indifferent fans and owned by incompetent people, use plenty of 
mediocre players etc. then the chances for failure are actually bigger because
everything will be second-rate and the sponsors and TV companies will notice
it and continue to ignore the "insignificant minority sport" of soccer. And
just because there are only 16 big-league teams or so does not mean it will
have to be terrifyingly expensive. The Mexicans and Japanese are operating
decent professional "major" league without shelling out a fortune on players.
Yes, the NASL did a lot of stupid things but the _basic_ idea behind their
league was sound.
 
> --Tom Fragala
> 
> -- 
> 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Tom Fragala  +  Univ of Massachusetts-Lowell  +  tfragala@cs.ulowell.edu |
> | "To conclude, I announce what comes after me...                          |