Future Looks Rosy, Major League Soccer Chief Says

Arelius · 03-10-2005, 10:35 PM

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=7858517&pageNumber=0

I know Rover is going to love this:

"Teams have approached us about getting involved, so I wouldn't be surprised if it came to be that we had more foreign club investment in the league in the future. It just makes sense."

I take the same view, but I know others do not...

As we think about the great leagues of the world (Premiership, Serie A, La Liga, etc.), think about all the foreigners that play in those leagues and how the leagues have benefitted therefrom. And I don't believe that it has hurt their homegrown talent, either.

As we think about foreign investment in those leagues, the most obvious example is Chelski, bought out by a Russian gazillionaire. But, what has that done to the premiership? I think the effect has been a positive one: Chelsea have succeeded in breaking into what was traditionally a two-horse race of the premiership (between Arsenal and ManU).

Anyway, I'm sure there are pros and cons about foreign investment, foreign involvement, etc. and I'm sure this discussion will never die, but I could readily think of some pluses.

As we make baby steps towards becoming a more respected league in world soccer, can we avoid looking at how the other great leagues have done it?

Czar Jake · 03-10-2005, 10:52 PM

I don't know if it's just me, but that linkie no workie. I found it here:

same story

Arelius · 03-10-2005, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czar Jake

I don't know if it's just me, but that linkie no workie. I found it here:

same story

Sorry, I just fixed it, looks like I added a back slash to the URL...

Rover · 03-10-2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arelius

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=7858517&pageNumber=0\

I know Rover is going to love this:

"Teams have approached us about getting involved, so I wouldn't be surprised if it came to be that we had more foreign club investment in the league in the future. It just makes sense."

I take the same view, but I know other do not...

As we think about the great leagues of the world (Premiership, Serie A, La Liga, etc.), think about all the foreigners that play in those leagues and how they have benefitted therefrom.

As we think about foreign investment in those leagues, the most obvious example is Chelski, bought out by a Russian gazillionaire. But, what has that done to the premiership? I think the effect has been a positive one: Chelsea have succeeded in breaking into what was traditionally a two-horse race of the premiership (between Arsenal and ManU).

Anyway, I'm sure there are pros and cons about foreign investment, foreign involvement and I'm sure this discussion will never die, but I could readily think of some pluses. And I don't believe that it has hurt their homegrown talent, either.

As we make baby steps towards becoming a more respected league in world soccer, can we avoid looking at how the other great leagues have done it?

Now, now, let's be fair. Investment is one thing, and forming a farm team is another. I fully support solid, long term investment from anywhere we can get it.

This is not unlike owners from other sports investing in the league. Obviously the big three Uncles (Lamar, Phil, and Bob) all own franchises in other U.S. pro leagues, as does Uncle Stan in Denver. Uncle Phil owns some soccer teams overseas. And Uncle Jorge has several teams in his stable, above and beyond his CDG properties.

Between the lines, what Garber is saying is that MLS is looking like a good risk to a number of big money investors out there. The message is a quantum leap forward from the caution of a few years ago. Amazing what $150 million from Adidas does for your confidence.

And yes, it didn't hurt that Uncle Jorge dropped some serious cash to get aboard too.

There, I said it. 🙂

clarette · 03-11-2005, 08:59 AM

I think foreign investment is a good thing -- the current MLS structure with the salary caps and everything prevents anyone from swooping in and pulling a Roman Championshipmanagerovich in this league.

I'm not really stoked about the idea of branding MLS teams based on teams in other countries, though.

It risks alienating a lot of fans who dislike that particular team, for one thing. In a market as big as LA, I think Chivas can pull it off, but in smaller communities, it just gives people another reason not to follow MLS.

You need some sort of critical mass to make a team successful, and dividing the soccer-supporting community by naming it after one team or another probably isn't the smartest way to go about doing it.

S'not my money, though, so whatever the sugar daddies want to do, I guess...