MLS on par with Premiere League? [Archive]

View Full Version : MLS on par with Premiere League?

O&A Virus

19th June 2007, 19:35

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=439873&cc=5901

LONDON -- Alexi Lalas helped humiliate English soccer 14 years ago. It looks like he's trying to do it again.

The Los Angeles Galaxy president, who scored when the United States beat England 2-0 in a friendly in 1993, told British newspapers that Major League Soccer is on a par with the Premier League.

Irked by suggestions that David Beckham is going into semiretirement by joining the Galaxy, Lalas said the only reason the English league is popular is because of American-style marketing.

"The fact that a segment of the world worships an inferior product in the Premiership is their business,'' Lalas said in an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday.

"In England, our league is considered second class, but I honestly believe if you took a helicopter and grabbed a bunch of MLS players and took them to the perceived best league in the world they wouldn't miss a beat and the fans wouldn't notice any drop in quality.''

Brian McBride and Clint Dempsey are among the American players in the Premier League, although they play for modest Fulham. None of the American players in England are stars of the caliber of those at teams such as Manchester United and Chelsea.

McBride -- the third highest scorer in U.S. national team history with 30 goals -- scored nine times last season for Fulham, which finished 16th in the Premier League. His tally was 12 short of Didier Drogba's league-high 21 for Chelsea, and the same as Wigan's Emile Heskey and Aston Villa's Gabriel Agbonlahor.

Alexei Lalas says MLS has comparable talent to England's Premier League.

Despite criticizing the Premier League for sloganeering and over-marketing, Lalas claimed that, when he arrives, Beckham will have a higher profile in the United States than Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan.

"The U.S. will never have dealt with an athlete who has had this kind of international impact,'' Lalas told The Mirror. "Tiger Woods has that international appeal but, with due respect to Woods and Michael Jordan, David Beckham is at an entirely different level.''

Lalas, a 37-year-old former United States defender, said his country's record at the past four World Cups compared favorably with that of England -- England has two underwhelming quarterfinal appearances to one for the U.S. -- and suggested almost all those who criticize the MLS have yet to see the league.

However, several British papers were unimpressed by the Galaxy's 3-2 win over Real Salt Lake on Sunday.

"The game was not without moments of quality ... [but] some of the defending from both sides was the type of stuff you watch through your fingers,'' according to The Mirror. "It was the football equivalent of a demolition derby.

"The use of possession was alarmingly careless and the concept of marking appeared not to have found its way across the Atlantic.''

Brown, Jon Brow

19th June 2007, 20:12

MLS = Coca Cola League 1 ;)

Premier League = La Liga ;)

N. Jones

19th June 2007, 23:21

Oh I don't think so.

To be honest no one gives a dam about true football in America...
To be even more honest I think there are so many sports in the US that soccer has a very hard time gaining popularity here. Although I remember one writer in my local paper saying that we (i.e. Americans) identify with the sports we have played. Using that rationale soccer should be quite big since just about everyone I have come in contact with has played the game.

Drew

20th June 2007, 00:10

That's easy to solve:

Man U v Whoever finished top of the MLS.

Should the MLS team lose, then they should carry on down the leagues until they win.

AndyRAC

20th June 2007, 00:48

While I don't necessary agree with him, I do know what he is getting at. Eveybody is brainwashed by the media into thinking the Premier League is the best in the world, might have the most action, but it isn't the best. Though it's not helped by Sky hyping it up and all the gullible fans believing it. Before all the press start having a go at Lalas they might want to have a look closer to home with all the shenanigans going on, West Ham, agents, etc. The money in football has ruined it, I used to love it, but not any more, personally I think it's rotten to the core, but nobody does anything. The fans are just as bad by continuing to go and pay their hard earned to be treated like sh1te. Sorry, rant over!!!

Rollo

20th June 2007, 01:05

That's easy to solve:

Man U v Whoever finished top of the MLS.

Should the MLS team lose, then they should carry on down the leagues until they win.

Chelsea did lose 1-0 to the MLS All-Stars but considering that this was a pre-season friendly and that the side which was actually on the park at the time is possibly what you'd call second string, it's funny that what is esentially the absolute best side to come out of the MLS still played unconvincingly.

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060805&content_id=68317&vkey=allstar2006&fext=.jsp

Heck I'd even wager that Blackpool could win the MLS first time out. I'd rate the MLS as on par with the A-League, so just avoiding relegation in the Championship in England.

Drew

20th June 2007, 01:53

Chelsea did lose 1-0 to the MLS All-Stars but considering that this was a pre-season friendly and that the side which was actually on the park at the time is possibly what you'd call second string, it's funny that what is esentially the absolute best side to come out of the MLS still played unconvincingly.

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060805&content_id=68317&vkey=allstar2006&fext=.jsp

Heck I'd even wager that Blackpool could win the MLS first time out. I'd rate the MLS as on par with the A-League, so just avoiding relegation in the Championship in England.

But when it says that the all stars played (unless i'm confused) that means that the best players from the entire league played and not just one actual team.

Scott Dryden

20th June 2007, 01:54

Rollo

20th June 2007, 02:24

Lalas is actually spot on with some of what he said:

"It's just that the Premiership have become so skilled in presentation. They took a page out of American football and now have Saturday Showdowns and Super Sundays. I love it. This is high-calibre marketing: taking an inferior product and improving it through packaging."

For the semi-finals of the 2006-7 Champions League, I believe that of the four semi-finalists three of them were Premier League clubs. Now either this says that the rest of Europe is totally crud, or that England has the highest standard.

The creation of the Premier League was largely as a result of a whole slew of changes, the biggest of which came about because of Heysel, Hillsborough, the Taylor Report and the subsequent Football Spectators Act of 1989.

The popularity of football in England has always been very high. All that the marketing did was take it to the rest of the world. Obviously Mr Lalas is not aware that Man Utd expanded to 67,000 in 1970 or that the FA Cup final has been played before sell out crowds since the White Horse Final when c.240,000 turned up.

Maybe he's not aware that there are 92 professional clubs, how does he explain that? Marketing? I mean seriously, in a country of 250 milliom people where the league struggles to even get crowds to just 13 clubs, he can't honestly suggest that the quality is there can he?

millencolin

20th June 2007, 02:48

Scott Dryden

20th June 2007, 04:46

For the semi-finals of the 2006-7 Champions League, I believe that of the four semi-finalists three of them were Premier League clubs. Now either this says that the rest of Europe is totally crud, or that England has the highest standard.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that at the top (four) end, the Premiership currently has the strongest teams in Europe. I suppose if all you're concerned about is the country's four best teams performing well in the European Cup, then your standards are met. If, however, you'd like to see something more than overly-tactical teams grinding out results for your 35-40 quid ticket, then you're not happy.

The more-money-than-sense super-fan (or is that day-tripper?) is quite happy watching Manchester United v Chelsea - both teams packing the midfield and playing at a pace your granny could keep up with. The pace of the games isn't likely to pick up either, in stadiums populated with super-fans, where you can hear a pin drop. Oh, but don't worry fellas, remember, it's a Super Sunday!

Last season, only Reading, Spurs and Arsenal played anything even approaching consistently good football. And only Anfield and Fratton Park provided anything approaching consistently good atmospheres.

The popularity of football in England has always been very high. All that the marketing did was take it to the rest of the world.
Absolutely not. Anyone who has attended football matches in the last five years (Premiership games, in particular) will have noticed - as a result of the high-calibre marketing - a completely different type of supporter starting to come to games. One that gets in your way when they're returning from the club shop 15 minutes after the second half has kicked off; or when they get up for their 5th coffee of the match.

The Premiership, in particular, are delighted their American marketing has attracted these super-fans. It doesn't matter that Manchester United v Chelsea isn't a patch on Real Madrid v Barcelona. Super-fans will continue to pay their Sky subscriptions because the marketeers have told them how great the match is. After all, it is part of a Super Sunday double-header.

I mean seriously, in a country of 250 milliom people where the league struggles to even get crowds to just 13 clubs, he can't honestly suggest that the quality is there can he?
Agree completely. There is no comparison between the Premier League (one of the best in the world) and the MLS (a competition probably inferior to the Championship). But Lalas is correct in that high-calibre marketing has been used to make people believe the Premiership is superior in areas it's actually relatively weak. He thinks this is impressive. Personally, I'm frustrated that it's lead to real supporters being pushed away from the game.

Rollo

20th June 2007, 06:16

For the record, I'm of the opinion that at the top (four) end, the Premiership currently has the strongest teams in Europe. I suppose if all you're concerned about is the country's four best teams performing well in the European Cup, then your standards are met. If, however, you'd like to see something more than overly-tactical teams grinding out results for your 35-40 quid ticket, then you're not happy.

Well since the various leagues in Europe don't compete in a totally enmeshed basis then what other proposed method do you suggest? The UEFA Co-efficients?

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/Keytopics/kind=64/newsId=436763.html

Since the data for 2006/7 isn't included yet, then it tends to play a year behind. Since the UEFA co-efficients looks at all clubs competing in European competition then it actually goes all the way down to those who entered the Inter-toto as well.

Or are you magically suggesting that there's some other method.

Absolutely not. Anyone who has attended football matches in the last five years (Premiership games, in particular) will have noticed - as a result of the high-calibre marketing - a completely different type of supporter starting to come to games. One that gets in your way when they're returning from the club shop 15 minutes after the second half has kicked off; or when they get up for their 5th coffee of the match.

Would you prefer a return to the mid 70s and 80s when the BNP would sell copies of Bulldog magazine outside the grounds? Ok, grant that the crowds have become gentrified a bit since the invention of all-seaters now, but you don't have to worry about being crushed to death or knifed inside the ground.

Although I understand your reasons, I fear that they're not based on experience.

oily oaf

20th June 2007, 08:30

Rollo. While you make some good points most of which I find myself in agreement with I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with you on the question of football in the 1970s and 80s.
I look back on this sepia tinged era with a fair amount of misty-eyed nostalgia and a deep longing for days gone by.
They were halcyon days when a young working class boy could put the weeks toil on the back burner and meet up with a few mates in the pub by the ground, in my case Upton Park, to reminisce about past triumphs or disasters and speculate feverishly as to what the days events would bring.
Then it was off to the ground where for a couple of quid you'd pass through the rickety turnstiles and take up your favourite position on the terraces amongst thousands of like-minded football mad blokes and not some prawn sandwich nibbling, slack jawed hooray henry who wouldn't know the offside rule from a Saville Row suit.
Sure the facilities along with the language were crude and basic but you didn't care. Just being a part of your own exclusive football family and sharing with them the nerve jangling tension of the game consigned any discomfort into the realms of trivia.
Yes there was a violent aspect to football in those days but what most people dont realise is that soccer hooliganism is still very much alive and kicking and flourishes nicely in most if not all of the lower leagues.
In any case even in those days when "The English Disease" was at it's most virulent unless you were a member of a football "firm" and actively sought out violent confrontation with rival fans your chances of being attacked were at worst extremely slight and at best non existent.
IMHO they were great days, they were my days and I for one mourn their passing and regard the "atmosphere" at contemporary Premier League grounds with nothing more than a great deal of contempt and no little sadness to boot.
They were the days when football, as Jeremy Clarkson might put it, "had soul"

As for Mr Gallas and his somewhat bizarre wittering. If I were in his expensive shoes I'd take a big swig from the reality bottle or better still go back to his now sadly defunct television career when he kept us all highly amused on Saturday afternoons with his virtuoso performances as Catweazel.

AndyRAC

20th June 2007, 09:34

The Premier League is the No1 for marketing and promotion. Football only started in 1992, or tha's what people would have you believe, how many times have I seen quiz questions saying," Since the Premiership started who...". Er, excuse me league football has been going since 19th century. Another thing all the celebrity fans and football is the new trend and cool. Give it a rest, football needs a reality check, the slavish media don't help, reporting on the most inane stories. Watching and listening to Sky Sports News and Talksport the last few days you wouldn'y know the football season is over, talk about overkill, it's the summer - cricket, golf, etc

Scott Dryden

20th June 2007, 12:10

Well since the various leagues in Europe don't compete in a totally enmeshed basis then what other proposed method do you suggest? The UEFA Co-efficients?

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/Keytopics/kind=64/newsId=436763.html

Since the data for 2006/7 isn't included yet, then it tends to play a year behind. Since the UEFA co-efficients looks at all clubs competing in European competition then it actually goes all the way down to those who entered the Inter-toto as well.

Or are you magically suggesting that there's some other method.
Not at all. I don't have major problems with the structure of European club competition these days (although the organisation of tournaments is another matter). My point is that despite the undoubted strength of the country's top sides, there are other issues (mentioned in my previous posts) which mean that the Premiership isn't as superior to the rest of the word as the marketing men would have us believe.

Would you prefer a return to the mid 70s and 80s when the BNP would sell copies of Bulldog magazine outside the grounds? Ok, grant that the crowds have become gentrified a bit since the invention of all-seaters now, but you don't have to worry about being crushed to death or knifed inside the ground.

Although I understand your reasons, I fear that they're not based on experience.
But wanting the Premier League, in particular, to cater more for real football supporters isn't linked to hooliganism. Given the massive increase in money to clubs from the TV contract next season, ticket prices could be reduced across the board. And this could be tied in to a loyalty scheme, so that the new breed of supporter (who only seems to attend a couple of matches a season, anyway) wouldn't be able to nab the cheap tickets. This would at least be a step in the right direction, in my view.

Rollo

21st June 2007, 01:51

My point is that despite the undoubted strength of the country's top sides, there are other issues (mentioned in my previous posts) which mean that the Premiership isn't as superior to the rest of the word as the marketing men would have us believe.

If you want to compare like with like the perhaps the question is who would a club like Man City, Wigan or even Watford fare in the other leagues in Europe.
Grant that the top clubs are playing with hideous amounts of money, but I suspect that had Watford been playing in Italy they'd have finished about 7th, not in last. If Man City had been in Spain, they'd probably be 9th or so.

If you look further downwards, the depth in England is far greater. I seriously doubt whether anyone in the Serie B would survive in the English Championship (except for maybe Juve who despite having 9 points deducted still won it at a canter). How would Napoli fare in England? They might be able to hold their own against Luton but I very much doubt they'd ever escape mid-table mediocrity in the Championship.

I think that there are realistically about 30 clubs capable of playing consistent Premiership in England whereas in Spain there's not even a dozen and in Italy there might be 10 at best.

Marketing is merely how you sell the game. If you want to see nations who are utterly mad for the game, try Brazil or Argentina. There's where the talented nations are and that has nothing to do with marketing at all.

The fact that there are 92 professional clubs in England says that the depth must be there at least. How many nations can boast that a former club champion of their confederation is playing in the third tier in their country.

I still maintain that generally the standard of play in the English club system is better than the rest of the world (; as an aside it is precisely that reason why the nation side is so rubbish). And yes, my memory goes back before 1992; I also recognised that there's not merely 20 clubs either.

jso1985

23rd June 2007, 05:18

Lalas is on drugs.

DC United was allowed to participate in the South American cup in 2005(Houston Dynamo will play this year), played against Colo Colo in the first round(a Bayer Leverkusen or Roma type team if comparing), they lost both games...

Mark in Oshawa

23rd June 2007, 08:57

Lalas is just sellng hype,and while I will defer you Brits and other's on how much better the top level of the Premiership is, I will say from what I have heard or read since about Lalas's comments is the thought that he was tweaking the nose of the Brits a little, and he admitted on Fan590s "Prime Time Sports" in Toronto that he was serious about saying the MLS could put teams that would not be out of place in the Premiership somewhere in the lower Divisions. He didn't claim the teams would be Chelsea or Man U. I think personally, he was just selling a little hype, but I think he does think it is insulting people think Beckham is just going to walk over people in the MLS. I know enough about soccer (football, whatever you want to call it) to know he will not find it a walk in the park.

This argument is no different than a Brit friend of mine telling me that at good British league team in hockey could have a go at the worst NHL team. No....but the level of difference between a good team and a bad team in either sport isn't vast and large either...

veeten

23rd June 2007, 14:49

DC United was allowed to participate in the South American cup in 2005(Houston Dynamo will play this year), played against Colo Colo in the first round(a Bayer Leverkusen or Roma type team if comparing), they lost both games...[/quote]

Here's a little history lesson, for those who are a bit dismissive about my team, D.C. United.

http://web.mlsnet.com/t103/load.jsp?section=about&content=tradition

MrJan

25th June 2007, 23:03

While I'll admit that the premier league has lost some of it's shine there is no way that the MLS could compete on a realistic level. True some players could play for clubs in the bottom half of the league but Mcbride is one of America's best players and only scored 9 goals in 38 games, the same as an over the hill striker and a winger from a team hardly famed for multi goal thrillers.

I think a much better test of the sport in the US would be to take a mid table league 1 side and see how they'd compare to an equivilant American side.