DISQUS

Kandji is only an asylee at this point, and that's a long way from citizenship, which you would need to have to be Nat-eligible. Unfortunately, it's likely to take him too long, as Bakary Soumare found out.

The mistake in Tampa was ever bringing a team to Tampa without an owner willing to make a significant upfront investment.

The reason USL can attract owners is that it doesn't require an upfront commitment, but here's the nasty surprise--RUNNING THE TEAM STILL DOES. This is why many, many teams come into USL, and many, many teams also go out.

Including Tampa's old ASL team.

The problem with Kartik's opinions is that they are spun to fit into the prior prism of MLS being basically beneath him (including his belief that the single-entity system is preventing it being a better league, which there's no real reason to believe).

For instance, the claim that 1996's talent is arguably better than today's. One couldn't possibly hold this opinion unless one were *only* looking at the top 10-20 players, about 1-2 per team. On that level, it's debatable, but once one looks at entire rosters for the whole league, it's clear that teams are much better today.

1996 also drew better only for about 6 weeks of novelty effect and pent-up demand for soccer. MLS's attendances are much firmer and predictably stronger today.

As a sidenote, I can understand Ron's view of the issue, especially where it concerns the US team. When the US is not involved it's hard to argue that the Euro 2008 Final and the Galaxy-United game being an ABC double-header doesn't represent a golden opportunity.

It really rubs me wrong when people knee-jerk any perceived failing of the league as "arrogance." Especially when it concerns a league that has had to endure existential crises just to get to the point of breaking even.

It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the American soccer culture, and probably some arrogance in the other direction.

To think that MLS schedules conflicts with international tournament because it thinks itself too important is naive--it would be sympathetically so, if you weren't throwing around accusations.

But in reality, any criticism of MLS scheduling must chew on and swallow the fact--and it is a fact, that MLS draws better for the decision. The league's attendance does not go down during these tournaments, it actually goes up slightly, probably due to the craving for live soccer these tourneys generate. It goes up especially in comparison to the actual alternatives, which are:
1) More midweek games
2) Playing earlier or later, in cold weather months
3) Shortening the season

A criticism that can't account for this reality and can't get past simplistic psychological explanations isn't going to stick, because at this point it hasn't made a case about bringing home the bacon.

Grahame Jones is going to have to sue you for plagiarism with those obviously spoon-fed takes about the "bad calls" and the defense of John Carver nobody would have made had he not.

MLS almost certainly gets more "random hits" in the average month than the Prem does, due to the better carry rates and channel positions of the channels.

But that said, the Prem is the richest and most glamorous league in the world. It is the league that people who say MLS isn't good enough (and we're not just talking hardcores here, this is the complaint outsiders to the game raise as well) more often than not pose as a contrast.

I cannot imagine that, as the interest in professional soccer grows in this country, as it obviously is growing right now, that the Prem won't grow alongside. This should continue to be true until at least that point where the difference between the Prem and MLS are more a matter of nuance and less a matter of night and day like they are now.

Someday in the future where if you rated the level of play in the Prem as a 10, MLS would score a 7, then yes I could see a lot of defections. Until that day, the Prem should gro as pro soccer in general grows.