The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Shaq couldn't get in to see the Commander-In-Chief on Monday, but FIFA President Sepp Blatter did. From the looks of things, Washington's most famous resident turned on the charm, ably dribbling a soccer ball which Blatter brought as a gift and expressing interest in an invitation to attend next summer's World Cup in South Africa.
But Blatter wasn't just here to exchange pleasantries. The FIFA boss came to talk about the prospects of another World Cup in the United States in either 2018 or 2022 -- an event which D.C. would almost certainly be involved in, just as it was 15 years ago. Blatter couldn't resist the negativity, though, noting that American soccer, in the wake of the last World Cup on these shores, did not have "the impact [FIFA] expected." It's been known for years that England will most likely host the Cup in 2018, with the U.S. a front-runner for 2022 -- so why Blatter felt the need to diss our progress is unknown. After all, one wonders exactly what kind of "impact" Blatter was expecting in the mere 13 years since America has had a legitimate professional soccer league: Crowds over 70,000 for big friendlies? A national team on the rise? A ever-growing demand for the game on domestic television? The best female players in the world? A major expansion in our top division? Compelling stories? Yeah, shucks, it's too bad we don't have any of that going on in this country.
But enough about Sepp, who, despite his position as one of the most influential men in the game, seems resigned toward, rather than pleased about, the beautiful game's inevitably increasing sphere of influence. This meeting did ping our curiosity about when the resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to make it out to a D.C. United match. Come on, Mr. President, we know your soccer-playing daughters would be into it -- besides, couldn't you write off games against teams from El Salvador as a diplomatic engagement?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So will this bring the usual suspects out to demand that a world-class soccer stadium be built at Poplar Point? Because there's certainly enough money lying around for one of those.
Not sure, but evidently it will bring out the usual suspects who stir up off-topic sh%t for the hell of it.
Al Capone's Guns Don't Argue!
Since market research apparently indicated that Prince George's County and United would not be a good match for each other, and that fire is hot, United is reportedly looking at Buzzard Point now. Which, momentarily setting aside the question of value for money until we hear something about the terms of any such deal, would rule.
Aaron, let's be fair about Blatter's comment. Before the 13 year old MLS we had the NASL which ran for 16 years. Then we hosted the World Cup the same year NASL folded. To be honest, we probably didn't deserve to be hosts considering soccer's(ugh) place in our sports hierarchy as well as ours in world rankings, so it's entirely reasonable for Blatter to expect the sport to be more strongly positioned in the culture of a former host country. Alot of teams have to share stadia w/ NFL throwball teams or universities.
the 70k+ crowds at international and world club friendlies is great. Let's have those crowds show up to domestic league matches. Let's have the energy and intensity at BMO replicated in all MLS and USL pitches .. er ... fields of play. Seeing Beasley, Gooch, Dempsey, Howard, Edu and Adu play overseas is also awesome. Let's have more of the same. All the other things you point out -- league expansion, more crowds at matches, tv coverage -- are very recent, like in-less-than-5-years recent. We're making a lot of progress as a country but Blatter's absolutely right.
NASL folded in 1984, not 1994, the year of the World Cup here in the States.
I know I know ... lord help me I know
If you're going to retch at Americans say "soccer" and "fields" instead of "football" and "pitches," will you also complain that we also use the terms "elevator," "apartment" and "truck?" They're just words, dude.
saying*. argh.
dude, I don't know what the hell you're even talking about.
bye.
ooooh. I get it ... the rules of engagement. and you're layin em down. k, got it.
I'm American too, btw which is why I refer to our men's national team as "us" and "we". So if you're going to retch at an Ethiopian American, read what the fuck he wrote first. cool? cool.
Uh, where can you see Beasley play overseas?! All he does for Rangers is ride the pine...that is, unless you're talking reserve matches. The only thing Beasley had going for him was speed anyway...his touch is awful.
As far as ripping on your selective use of terms - I believe Dues was referring to your "ugh!" parenthetical after the word soccer. If you are remarking that calling it "soccer" is displeasing to you - then Dues has a point. We call it soccer. So what. It's a derivation of the what the Brits used to call it "Association Football" so you can rest easy that it's not a bastardization. And the Canadians and Aussies both call it soccer...if that gives you any peace.
If, however, your "ugh!" was referring to soccer's woeful place in the sports heirarchy, I'm right there with you. It's a shame, but then again - who cares?!
DE's got it. I took your "ugh" to mean "I am displeased that this particular sport is called soccer in the United States instead of football." I understood the fact that you referred to the American national team as we/us. I was not doubting that you were an American, I was just curious as to why you were so angry that people in this country use a particular word to describe something while people in other countries use a different word.
btw, Blatter also mentioned that he expects Obama to be at either the opening ceremonies or the final, bc "the people around him" are soccer fans. music to my ears.
What's needed here are good half-time beer ads. I'm thinking Corona V Corona Lite. Guinness V Harp. That'd rocket soccer into the big time. Or something. Oh, and, Go Dips!
MLS will not succeed if the model for success is outdated. With the exception of the NFL, which has many institutional advantages, no sport is dominant like sports were 50 years ago. We have this ingrained idea of the big three sports, but the thing is, they're simply not what they used to be. With some small exceptions (i.e. NFL, some college teams in some sports) Americans are simply not that into any one sport. There are too many other entertainment options for one sport to be dominant.
So, MLS will never be like baseball was in the 50's. But neither will baseball.
Even in europe, soccer isn't as big as it is portrayed. You can see plenty of premiere league games where the stadium is half empty. (Although it is absolutely staggering to consider the structure of the English football system. There are around 7,000 professional teams in a country the size of New York State).
MLS isn't even close to baseball or basketball, or for that matter NASCAR and mixed martial arts. Television ratings for soccer in the US are abyssmal. The women's league may have the best players in the world, but nobody is watching or going to the games and the league will be lucky to last 5 years before folding (again).
Right now, if you had to rank sports in terms of popularity in the US, soccer would fall behind (in no particular order):
Professional football
College football
High school football (in many parts of the country)
Professional baseball
Professional basketball
College basketball
NASCAR
Mixed martial arts
Professional hockey (a close one, but NHL teams do outdraw soccer teams and ratings on TV are sligthly better)
PGA golf
If you throw poker (not really a sport) into the mix, then soccer falls even lower.
In terms of one-off big events, the MLS championship doesn't even register against the Super Bowl, World Series, and other events like the Kentucky Derby, Indy 500, Masters, etc.
In other words, Blatter is correct. Soccer has not taken hold in the US the way it has in other countries. That may be a tough pill to swallow for DC United fans, but it is the reality.
Kickball
Team Tennis
Beer Pong
hillvada is spot on. that's not to say that we can't see the world's best; we stunned the shit out of Spain (ranked #1) and lead Brasil for about an entire half, so we have the talent. with increased immigration and more internat'l club friendlies to stoke the audience here, the scene will keep improving. in 10 years US v Brasil could be as competitive a match up as US v Mexico.
A few things. 1) Fitsum, many MLS teams have soccer-only stadiums and the league is basically requiring any new club to have plans in place to build one before they're granted a team. Seattle may be an exception, but their atmosphere may be unrivalled. 2) The 1994 World Cup in the States had the highest average attendance in the history of the tourney, a whopping 69k per game. That easily clears the next highest recent tourney ('06 in Germany) by over 15k. Say what you want about enthusiasm for soccer in the US -- there's going to be an astronomical turnout if they have it here again, no question. 3) The MLS has grown considerably. They've been very conservative in their dealings (prior to the Beckham ordeal at least) to ensure parity and that's made the league compelling. There is a solid core of die-hard fans. As quality slowly improves, that core will expand. I personally don't expect it to ever reach any of the big three, but I think it will close the gap over time.
I think soccer has also risen in visibility. 15 years ago Fox Soccer Channel wasnt in most cable packages. ESPN wasnt showing Champions League games. Now its much easier to watch English, Spanish, German, or Italian league games.
I used to watch bundesliga w/ my dad on WETA in the mid-late 70s. but that was about it for international games. I think ABC had rights to NASL, usually showed all the Cosmos and Dips joints.
good lord, did I write that we hosted in '84? blerg.
I'm pretty optimistic about the game blowing up here. I think Blatter is too. But when you look at the list of host countries (http://tr.im/usmO) where football isn't the national sport, or in the case of Korea and Japan, overwhelmingly huge; this is just seems out of balance to me. I'm aware of the strides the game is making in terms of expansion, fan base, etc, but those things don't take away from Blatter's point.
btw, as a Beckham fan, ordeal or not, the conversation's made its way into mainstream sports news and that's not so bad as far as creating awareness goes.
I have one thing to say to you, Sepp: We put butts in seats.
Even he admitted that.
It's all about the $$ with FIFA, and the USA can certainly deliver. Besides, they still owe us after 1986.
Yeah, it would be the most profitable World Cup ever, but Sepp is traditionally more interested in getting some of that money in his own pocket, which is much harder to pull off in the US.
eh? please to splain?
When it comes to stopping members of the governing body from using their office to enrich themselves at the expense of the game, FIFA has a better reputation than the International Olympic Committee but slightly worse than the DC Council. Most problems usually arise from player transfers, which FIFA promises they're cracking down on, but there's been plenty of plausible accusations of financial hanky-panky when it comes to siting the World Cup. Sepp Blatter himself may have the worst name in soccer, but he doesn't have the worst reputation; that dubious distinction would probably go to FIFA Vice President and CONCACAF President Jack Warner, a notorious sleazeball who reportedly doesn't want the World Cup held in America because the IRS is too nosy.
Sepp Blatter sounds like a horrible disease.
I'm just happy a post on a speculative many-years-off soccer tourney can raise 20 comments.
Go Dips! Umm, Nats.
Umm, United!
Seriously, unless prices come down, my kids won't have the season tickets (decent seats!) I had back in the day.