DISQUS

Mark, I'm as eager to see us move beyond Ching as the next guy. But his link up work has been stellar. He was brilliant on Saturday.

Although I was disappointed to see Ching start, I admit that his performance was outstanding. People, a low-key friendly followed a B camp. The crowd was skinnny. So, what? Did you expect 30,000 for that? Come on. They train for three weeks then drag their equipment bags to the stadium. It's perfect for them.

I follow MLS not because it's better than EPL or La Liga but because it's the league of my country and because I enjoy watching a sport evolve as much as I enjoy watching it at its highest level. But I don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted by idiots like Rob Stone, the gushing sagacity of Judy Foudy, the affectations of Alan Hopkins. Nor do I appreciate the cheerleading of Della Camera (who I had always respected) or the fumbling phoniness of the albeit improving John Harkes. FSC is worse, unfortunately, with the capable but unrestrained Bretos and the Sybil of Soccer, the supremely affected and very weird Chris Sullivan. Sorry, sportsfans, but it's hard to enjoy a telecast when the producers of it have such disregard for the intelligence of its audience. If it fails, it fails. I prefer silence to insults. So screw MLS if it's kept in the dark.

Potentially, along with franchise, is a word that I'm tired of hearing. But I'm glad that I learned that "there's really only one David Beckham." Until today, I had thought there were several.

Harris, you're wrong. New England gets good coverage from the local papers and their highlights are shown on just about every local sports segment. That's a statement of fact.

People, USL won't be ALLOWED to compete with MLS. This isn't football or hockey. If it pretends to be a D1, it will be branded a pirate league and its players will be ineligible to play for their national teams. If the national teams select and use those players, Fifa will suspend the federations. Aside from that, you go on and on about the number of medium size cities and the possibility of "excitement" there, but you dismiss the possibility of similarlty sized cities forming the core of an independent Canadian league. The situation as it stands is ridiculous: there is no shortage of American cities but we're allowing bids from Canada to drive up the price. The whole North American soccer scene at the professional level- and I use the term "North American" reluctantly - deserves 30 days of psychological evaluation in a state facility. Both leagues and both countries would be better served if they do things the way they're done everywhere else: you look out for you own and you don't crap on your own doorstep. Of course, that would require the USSF to man up but we know FOR A FACT that MLS has bought it off.

Dude, I went out with a broad from McGill (she was from Toronto, but, hey). My best friend's brother went there and we visited all the time. Montreal is a superb city. Toronto is, as well, but it's a little dull. Anyway, THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHICH CITIES ARE NICE CITIES. It's not even about the strength of the bid. There's a lake in Massachusetts. Its name is very long. The name means "You fish on your side of the lake and I'll fish on my side of the lake." Now I don't mean to introduce the subject of maritime boundaries but can't you just fish on your side of the lake?

Hang on, gang. I'm not anti-Canadian. I'm against Canadian teams in MLS. I'm for an all-American league.

Don't you love it? Here we go again. Wales is in political union with England and it has its own league; Welsh teams that are part of the English ladder existed before that league. There is no political union between the United States and Canada, no shared currency or common labor laws.

They'll sort all that out.

The current set-up gives Canada the advantage of concentrating effort, resources and attention on one team, in the case of MLS, and a few, in the case of USL. I'm more concerned with MLS. Canadian soccer fans haven't figured out that what most irritates American observers is that Canada asserts either its independence or its supposed etnernal fraternity depending on circumstances. When it's convenient, they distance themselves from the colossus. When it serves their purposes, they yap about the special relationship and historic trade patterns and all that. Bom. Toronto is unique among MLS clubs because it is an expression of frustrated soccer nationalism. Toronto fans will deny that, of course, but they're disingenuous or just wrong. Explain the red and white, the maple leaf on the crest, the Canadian flags in the stands. Toronto is a competent alternative to the national team. Guess what? There's no place for that in traditional club soccer. It's also unreasonable to expect that sort of long term intensity from the fans of other MLS teams. Lalas served up a softball to Abbott in that interview on Extra Time. Abbott, like a typical MLS moron, commented on Toronto's success and the viability of MLS in other Canadian cities when he had been asked about the appropriateness of having MLS teams in Canada. Lalas didn't press the matter. The USSF will allow further expansion into Canada because MLS will muscle it into granting approval. Anyway, it's a lot easier to develop a strong individual club when your ownership isn't the least bit concerned about developing the game in other parts of your country. Canadian clubs may be models. But if they're mere permanent guests in someone else's league, what's the point? If the owners of Toronto had any real pride in the maple leaf on the front of the team shirts they'd be dedicated to growing the game in Canada. Of course, if they ever did that there would be no need to have the darn maple leaf on the shirt in the first place. They want it both ways: they cite the limitations of the Canadian game and then celebrate their greater passion and sophistication. They blame their federation when their national team slips up but regard dependence and a reluctance to seek self-determination as a badge of honor.

Larry says...

"Face it: MLS is only around because of Mexican and Canadian interests."


I refuse to look at top tier soccer in my country with such pessimism and with such little pride.

Bishop, TFC could be the model team for the world. It makes no difference. It's a Canadian team. It should play in a Canadian league. And, whether you like it or not, future Canadian teams will need USSF approval. If St. Louis or a Southern city is overlooked in favor of Canadian cities, thinks could get ugly.

I'm not questioning the viability or the integrity of the Canadian teams. I'm merely saying that they have no place in our league; it remains OUR league as long is it is overseen soley by the USSF. Toronto is a team to admire ( I refuse to use the term "franchise")...to a degree. Its fans are committed and colorful. The team on the field will improve. But ultimately it does nothing for Canadian soccer, occupies a spot into which a US team could easily fit, and sets a terrible, a disgraceful precedent. Could you imagine if the LA Galaxy decided that MLS wasn't sufficiently big time or that MLS could only become SO big and then decided to play in the Mexican league? Anyway, I couldn't care less how sound the proposals are from Canadian groups. It's not about that. MLS is an American league. It should have only American teams.

Each Canadian team would require permission from the USSF; its approval of Toronto was limited to Toronto. MLS will tell every voter to approve Canadian expansion or risk being ostracized. Nice, huh? And this is soccer we're talking about. It's not the NHL. MLS baited and switched, corrupted the approval process and has driven up the cost of entry to the league for smaller American cities by allowing groups from Canada to bid up. The whole situation is deplorable. American cities will go without. Meanwhile, Canada is stuck with a lousy three teams in a league over which its own federation has no control. It's a mess. The USSF - who, by the way, approved Toronto after what it calls "some discussion" - should at least ask the tough questions this time around. But, you know what? If MLS selects any of the Canadian cities it will be because they've already received the wink and nod from USSF. Such transparency. And if so many cities are interested, why is MLS even considering Canadian cities? It's a joke.

What amazes me it that we now casually refer to MLS as a "North American" league. Equally amazing is the idea that the next round of expansion will be a Canadian city plus the best US bid, as if Canada is owed another MLS team. If another Canadian team is selected, I don't want to hear anyone refer to Toronto as "our Monaco." Toronto was allowed to participate in MLS by the USSF because it was argued that Canada couldn't support its own league. Yet Canadian cities now line up to be part of MLS and American cities are deemed insufficiently cosmopolitan.

Cooper didn't snub Bradley. He made a responsible decision. It's called professionalism. And he's handled it like a gentleman.

That's a load of crap, LV Canes. And, Franco, USL is a joke if it can't promote pure competition. Talk about cynical.

Why was that game played in Vancouver?

There was a time when I would have felt sorry for Canada. Not any more. Canada blames its CSA but no one up there has any interest in establishing a Canadian league. Instead they settle for 1-3 supposedly "model" teams in an American league. Until Canada shows some self-determination and the willingness to experience the growing pains that American soccer fans went through with MLS, Canada doesn't deserve any sympathy when it fails to move on. A section of rowdy drunks in Toronto cheering Marvell Wynne does not entitle Canada to the carpool lane to the World Cup finals.

I'm not going to cut Montreal any slack at all. Why? They do nothing but complain up there about the long distances that they'd have to travel if they had their own league, as if Boston to LA or Seattle to DC were a daytrip to the Laurentians.

I can't stand USL. But I don't know how you can justify that headline. If you want to establish enough credibility to make this site attractive, you should put more thought into your headlines. You should be doing a story on USL's decision to allow the second-seeded team to HOST their final against the top-seeded team.

Consider this: Historically one of four clubs has been represented in every MLS Cup final. Los Angeles, DC United, Houston/San Jose, and Kansas City.

You don't mention New England.