The highest the MLS should ever be is on par with the Finnish Elite Hockey League, or the CFL. BUT, there is a lot of money in the States, and quite a few people. The big problem with soccer over here though is that there are tons of kids playing, but it's only as a conditioning tool for hockey or football or baseball, or to pass the time. Also, the scores are too low, and the game is too slow. Here in North America, I call the majority part of GENERATION TEXT, meaning if something isnt delivered quick enough, there is a loss of interest. There is no imagination anymore, and people dont have the time to concentrate on something for that length of time. In football, the average play is what, 15 seconds? North Americans can do that. Hockey, a shift is under a minute. In soccer, you could be looking at 45 minutes non-stop, half the time the guys are walking around. there is no attention span here.
They were founded in 2006, but the whole league altogether is relatively young. Almost all of the clubs now have their own SSS (soccer-specific stadium). I think the only clubs that are still waiting for their own stadium are San Jose, New England, and DC United.
Soccer will never work in Toronto. There are too many teams fighting for the sports dollar here. The Leafs will ALWAYS be number one. Then you have the NBA Raptors, the MLB Blue Jays, the Toronto Rock in the NLL, and even the Argos in the CFL. With Toronto dying for an NFL franchise, Toronto FC will always remain a fringe sport supported by mainly older Europeans and children on school trips.
a salary cap is a great solution to clubs like manchester city that are ruining the game in Europe. Its really unfair because now nobody can compete with them because they over 6x times the salary of normal clubs.
Yeah, the MLS gets a lot of criticism in the UK - yet the Austrailan A-League doesn't get quite so much. Most of the clubs already have better stadiums than just about every Scottish club outside of Rangers and Celtic. A few years ago Scottish players that went over were usually quoted as saying that it was a decent standard of play, and although they could earn more money in England they had a very good standard of life in the States. Now more and more Scottish players - half-decent ones - are trying to get moves to the MLS when their contracts here expire. Not very many get offered a deal right enough, but that's probably because the standard in Scotland is dire!
Not to mention, people in Toronto don't even care for Canadian teams. My Dad and I went to a 'friendly' game at varsity years back between Poland and Canada. My dad was born in Poland even, yet him and I were the only, literally the only two people out of maybe 15,000 cheering for Canada. We were disgusted that the Canadian players were being booed on their own field by the 'fans' that we left after the first half. 15 or so years ago, we had the world basketball championships or something, and it was disgusting even then. The fans were booing Canada on their own court when they played Greece. Imagine playing for your country, and getting booed everytime you score? I guess my point is, soccer will never be big here as the people that should be trying to create the buzz for it are too arrogant to think that canadians could ever play on the same level, and their longing for the home country is just too strong. That is why I was so disappointed that the Women did so poorly. A good showing by them could have really helped the sport here.
I figured it was Chicago's east Side. That's why I thought there were sooooo many Golota fans here when I first came
I'd be really surprised if it is about the East Side, I know plenty of Chicagoans who don't even know of the East Side.
i believe so, which could be a reason boxing is on the decline here. also, superfights are so far and few between. the ufc has at least one big superfight a month or less. we waited 3 years for wlad / haye, and are still waiting for mayweather / pac
The modern Olympics was founded years ago on the "amateur ideal" and it wasn't "gentlemanly" to be paid to compete. This basically meant if you weren't upper class you couldn't afford to compete! Look at the sports back mid 1900's, it was basically a load of Toff, Oxbridge types (not including the communists). If you weren't rich you couldn't compete as you couldn't afford it! Those upper class, rich people also governed the sports and didn't want poor people that need to compete for money competing against them. They saw them as inferior. This caused the divide between amateur and pro sports. In no sport was the divide between pro and amateur aports bigger than in boxing. Boxing was on the amateur side a "gentlemans" sport. On the other hand it was a pro-sport with lower class people competing. The upperclass wanted to ensure there was a big divide and they were not seen as the same. In Track Athletics there was historically a requirement to have a clear Pro and Amateur divide as many upper class people would "own" foot men (I think thats what they called them), it was essentially a runner that they put up against other runners owned by other upper class people. The foot men were paid, but the upper class didn't want to be seen anywhere near the same when competing in the Olympics. It was pretty similar in Boxing. The upper class gambled on the lower class, but didn't want to be seen as the same as them when competing. Although now a completely different way of thinking exsists, it has brought about essentially two different sports and governing bodies. It hasn't been that many years back that if you made money from sport you were banned from the Olympics. US amateur athletics were threatening to ban track athletes that accpeted any sponsorship in cash or earn pay for attending in the 80's. Winter Olympians were banned due to competing in exhibitions etc during the same period. However, since there is so much money in these "amateur" sports now and the best were leaving they opened it up. Sports like football, basketball and tennis don't have completely seperate governing amateur and professional bodies with a completely seperate set of rules. Also in the case of football and basketball those teams only come together for the Olympics once every 4 years and there are no qualifying events in these sports outside of pro rankings. However, Boxing does have a seperate Governing Body, it is a completely different sport and they compete all year round. Changing the "team" just for the Olympics would be unfair. Especially when those boxers didn't go through the qualifying criteria. It would probably be possible for a pro boxer to retire from the pro ranks and compete back in the amateur sport if they went back and competed in that sport alone. It would be a bit hypocritcal not to allow it. I think there is an age limit though.
There are differant associations in am boxing, usually there will only be a certain 1 or 2 that can qualify a boxer for olympic selection. These associations function on a high and serious conduct level and must not have anything to do with professional boxing or promotion.