Talk:Major League Soccer

Major League Soccer thanks the Wikipedia community for updating and maintaining this and all related MLS entries.

---

CONCACAF Champions League

Guys, take a look at what was posted on the Soccer America website recently: *[1] Anyone think this qualifies as official enough for the main page? And where should we put this section?: a new section of its own or into the existing MLS competitions file? Again, I've seen comments from Commissioner Garber on this happening, so I think it's safe to assume that if it's winding up on an official TV schedule that we ought to put in a mention of this. Anyone happen to actually see the Telefutura schedule? I could use a more official confirmation before I or others put something on the main page about it.Drakeguy 03:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that this tournament is to be the reorganization of the CONCACAF Champions Cup. It's also part of a larger soccer broadcasting change as well. Take a look at the following from soccertv.com:

"TeleFutura to air MLS, InterLiga, and CONCACAF Champions League in 2007

May 21, 2006

Univision Communications has reached agreements with Soccer United Marketing (SUM) to air 3 products marketed by SUM starting with the 2007 season on the Spanish-language TV network TeleFutura:

1. US Major League Soccer (MLS): 25 matches each season including the MLS All-Star game and the Final, usually on Sundays at 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific.

2. The Mexican InterLiga: exclusive coverage of all matches each January, featuring 8 Mexican League teams fighting for 2 spots in Copa Libertadores, South America's premier club competition.

3. CONCACAF Champions League: exclusive coverage on Tuesday and Wednesday nights in July through November, featuring a combination of teams from the Mexican League, MLS, Central America, and the Caribbean, with the winner advancing to the FIFA Club World Championship in December.

Formerly known as the CONCACAF Champions Cup (Copa de Campeones), the 2007 CONCACAF Champions League will feature a group stage prior to the elimination rounds."

This sounds fairly offical to me, but I'd like a little input as to how this info is put in before I start putting in some edits. Drakeguy 07:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

US Open Cup/MLS box

As a continuation of the debate on the Toronto FC talk page, i was was just wondering, who feels that the US Open Cup should be taken off the MLS box template? It is not an MLS competition and has been going on for many years before MLS. As well, all other soccer teams on Wikipedia whether they be from Asia, Africa, South America or Europe (USL also does it too), all conform to a different box than the MLS one that doesn't contain wins, championships, ect... Should the MLS box conform to the universal soccer box? (Soccer fan 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism

I'd just like to ask if anyone has noticed a substantial amount of vandalism or "accidental" erasure of the main MLS page in edits. Somebody wiped out nearly a third of the page when they screwed up an edit-only page text, causing several important sections to completely disappear. It took me nearly 20 minutes to identify where the error in editing was. Whoever it was, please be more careful. --drakeguy 10:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ownership

"Teams usually have smaller local investors in addition to the primary owner operator."

I don't believe this is true. Does anybody else know? Chris Edgemon 07:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--Yes, I believe it is. The parent company of the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, for instance, is one of the smaller investors in the Columbus Crew. stancollins 17:45, 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origin of MLS

I will correct the MLS page to reflect the following information, from MLS's official website, at http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/about/

"On December 17, 1993, in fulfillment of U.S. Soccer's promise to FIFA, World Cup USA 1994 Chairman and CEO Alan I. Rothenberg announced the formation of Major League Soccer and unveiled the League logo." stancollins 17:56, 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FC vs F.C.

I've been trying to change references to "F.C. Dallas" to FC Dallas, in order to conform to the team's own usage. I don't know, however, how to change the table at the bottom of the article

Dave Walker 01:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed how it reads in the template. The article is still F.C. Dallas. --Elliskev 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Profitable teams

wasn't the Columbus Crew the first profitable team in MLS? it would stand to reason, as it was the first team to have its own stadium. Streamless 18:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the stadium itself is profitable. I think that the team was profitable just by itself, however teams share profits/losses with the rest of the league so overall I think they still had a loss. I think that the Galaxy was the first team to be profitable after taking that into account. --Scaryice 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the info!! Streamless 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rent

I have a problem with the section where it suggests that the Revs and Wizards pay no rent because their owners also own the stadium. While it is true that Kraft owns the Revs and Gillette Stadium and therefore the Revs pay no rent, and the Wizards do share the stadium with Lamar Hunt's Chiefs, Lamar does not own Arrowhead Stadium. Both the Chiefs and Wizards lease Arrowhead from Jackson County, MO. So they are in the same boat with half the league. I am not sure how to reword the article though.--66.141.252.106 07:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Soccer vs. Football

References to "soccer" should be changed to "football" in accordance with every country in the world that isn't America.

Drsmoo 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The sport is called soccer in many countries in Asia and Africa, as well as in Australia and Canada. In addition, considering the name of the league is "Major League Soccer" and the national teams are run by U.S. Soccer. And also considering that the game is commonly referred to as Soccer in the United States, I think the references are good the way they are.

Also, the league is called Major League Soccer (Soccer fan 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

The national league in Australia was called soccer, the governing body also, but they recently changed it to football. Now the soccer fans have taken up the "it's called football" mantra, conveniently forgetting the umpteen years of soccer. So be afraid, it may happen to you too :p --Angry mob mulls options 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope so, it's stupid to call a sport where you pass an oblong with your hands "football". the real football is a game where you kick a BALL with your FEET. that said, the league is called Major League Soccer, so we can't possibly change it...yet. mwuhahaha SnaX 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Gridiron and Soccer (and Rugby) all evolved from the same game; thus they all deserve the word "football". We should call them "gridiron football" (divided into American football and Canadian football), "association football" ("soccer" for short), and "rugby football". Powers ^T 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

sure, and you could back further and call everything the same word. hockey and basketball aren't really much different than soccer (when compared to something like baseball) either. you travel down the playing surface and try to get the "thing" in the goal/net while passing the other team. maybe they should be called football too? SnaX 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well except hockey and basketball developed independently. The historical development of the three forms of football is well documented. Powers ^T 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an article about a topic in the U.S. Per WP:NC, it should use American spellings and terms. Thus, "soccer". Don't forget that the word "soccer" originates from England as well (see football (word). howcheng {chat} 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Competitions Section

A clearer explanation of what MLS teams are playing for.

Change the “Past MLS Cup Championship games” to a Competitions section. Indicate that prior to 2006 the primary completion was the MLS Cup. Explain that the primary/league/regular season is a used to determine qualification and seeding for an end off season playoff/knockout tournament.

State that as of 2006, 2 competitions will take place.

• The MLS_Supporters'_Shield, which will be awarded to the MLS team with the most points in primary/league/regular season play.
• The MLS Cup.

Both the Supporters Shield and MLS Cup winners qualify for the CONCACAF_Champions_Cup. If the same team wins both competitions, the second place Supporters Shield is the second CONCACAF Champions Cup qualifier.

Also note that each MLS team automatically participates in the Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup.

Playoff spectator interest

Out of curiousity - how come there's less spectator interest in the playoff games, generally all teams but DC United and LA Galaxy have declining fan support there? Poulsen 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating to me as well. My gut feeling would be a combination of 1)Season ticket holders passing on the playoffs and 2)Fans of the 3-4 seeds thinking their team has very little chance of winning and therefore not going. Usually there is a pretty significant gap between the top and bottom playoff teams by the time they roll around. I would also guess that the gap between paid and actual attendance widens as the year wears onm but we'll likely never know. Cthomer5000 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It has more to do with the lack of certainty of playing dates until a few days before games, and the lack of "hard-core" fandom of each club. Remember that a large percentage of MLS attendees are youth players and their families, who view attending games as an activity for their kids, like going bowling or to the movies. Those folks don't show during playoff time.--Mfishkin 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Glassboro as 2009 expansion

The press release specifically says: "The construction is being planned without any guarantee from MLS to have a team play on the school's campus in Glassboro, N.J. Rather, the league has agreed to exclusively work with the university over the next four months on the development of the stadium, MLS President Mark Abbott said on Monday." Until there is a guarantee, I think it should stay in Possible expansion --Elliskev 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it also provides a timeframe, and is by far the most concrete expansion deal of anything the MLS has been involved in this year. I'm putting it under possible 2009 expansion section, as the details are too many to ignore, but the deal is not yet quite finished. Take a look at the following. "Major League Soccer is pleased to have entered into an exclusive negotiating period with Rowan University as the potential site of a soccer-specific stadium and an MLS team," MLS Commissioner Don Garber said. Looks like to me this is almost a done deal, so why, if MLS Commissioner Don Garber 'and' Rowan University leadership appear to be on the same page in EVERY news article on this I have seen, should we disregard their own comments? This comes from the MLS itself, while the university says "This is a major step for South Jersey, and Rowan University is thrilled to be a part of Major League Soccer's family and all it can mean for -- and bring to --our area," Rowan President Donald Farish said. "We expect the Rowan West project to impact the region's economy, bring in new ratables, create new jobs and significantly transform the university." The only thing that's a caveat about it is the following, quote, "Rowan has 120 days to develop plans for the complex under an agreement with Major League Soccer. Campus officials still need to recruit a developer and come up with a plan for a public/private partnership to finance the construction." I won't put it as confirmed for 2009, but under possible 2009 expansion franchise section. Hope that satisfies your need for the gap between finalized and proposed deal.

--drakeguy 9:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It does. I like it. --Elliskev 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Glassboro as Possible 2009 expansion

Glassboro should remain under possible expansion franchises until it is clear that an expansion team is coming or a franchise relocating. KitHutch 15:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How much clearer could it be? Do you want wikipedia readers to be out-of-date when using this page as a source simply because your editing standards don't allow this? Or did you simply choose to ignore OFFICIAL MLS sources I posted?!? This "Possible 2009 expansion" section deserves to be in there, we'd be letting down wikipedia readers if we were not to include it! There's too much news on this not to at least give it a mention. Anybody else besides the three of us have an opinion? --drakeguy 12:07, 22 March 2006

I read the article that was posted on mlsnet.com. There is no franchise coming to Glassboro yet. Read the MLS press release. They are saying that they are helping the school built a stadium so that if they ever do go to the Philadelphia area there will be a stadium ready for a team. I have read articles online about the MLS announcing 2006 expansion teams in Cleveland and San Antonio too. I don't see those teams anywehere. KitHutch 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone on the page finally added what I wanted, and I think this little miscommunication and controversy is finished. All I wanted was the info that it was a possible 2009 expansion team, and whoever put in the information about the timing of it under expansion places has my gratitude. NOTE, I did not state that a MLS team was coming to the Philadelphia area, I just thought we ought to provide up-to-date info like location and date on such a possible event. That's why I had it listed under "Possible 2009 Expansion" section, before someone chopped it up without adding anything on the expansion places section directly underneath. Thankfully though the info I wanted on the page still managed to get on there, although I don't know who to thank for it. By the way, I did read the press release, and I did not say it confirmed an expansion team for the Philadelphia area. Don't put my editing out of context! --drakeguy 6:53, 27th March, 2006.

The page lacks basic information

I know nothing about MLS. How many games do they play?

I had to scroll past a half page of business details before finding something about the sport itself. Shouldn't the current relevant information be listed first, and the history last, especially for a league that is eleven seasons old?

Added a competition format section. May need to clean up duplicate info in rest of article. --Martinkena 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article could also use an explanation on how the teams get "points" in the season, ie. for wins, losses, ties, points away, etc?

Rochester

Is or isn't Rochester a possible expansion franchise? There's some (I think) vandal that continue to remove the city from the section. CapPixel 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The expansion fee has increased beyond the Rhinos' ownership's means, but Rochester remains frequently mentioned as a relocation candidate. In fact, just this week, the owner of Real Salt Lake has said he might sell if he can't get funding for a new stadium, and the Rhinos ownership have been consistently mentioned as a possible buyer. Powers 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible future expansion/relocation candidates

This section seems redundant. I think you could move the references to the section "Expansion..." and remove this section entirely. Thoughts? --Rballou 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to move the references to the section mention and then remove the list from further down the page. --Rballou 17:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section. For history's sake here is the link before I made any of my changes: [2]. If you have any comments or questions, just let me know. I just felt this section was redundant and create two sections that had to be maintained (they did not match, either). Please feel free to clean up my mess as well :) --Rballou 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Major League Soccer MVP Award page

On the Talk:Major League Soccer MVP Award page I have asked if the page should be renamed to MLS MVP Award as all the other awards listed on this page are named MLS and not Major League Soccer. Any opinions? --Rballou 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Legit rumblings?

I substituted this choice of words to something along the lines of "legitimate rumors". This was in the section that talked about expansion sites. --{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Squad template update

Each team now has a full squad template, and each is integrated into the main page and into the bio pages of each member of the squad. Columbus, Chivas, Dallas, Colorado, and L.A. are the newest additions, and RSL had a stranded template that has now been integrated. Bill Oaf 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, all rosters now have a "correct as of" date of August 8th or higher, having been cross-checked with the mlsnet.com rosters since then. Only RSL and Chivas had real changes necessary. Bill Oaf 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, little more work: "as of" dates are all around Aug. 30th, meaning that all rosters are correct right now. Added coaching info to all templates, on the model of the existing Revs and Fire plates. Bill Oaf 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stadia"

OK, so we all know that "stadia" is the "proper" plural of "stadium", but does anyone ever actually say it? Powers ^T 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree... Stadia is sooo dorky. Minfo 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Both stadia and stadiums are appropriate plural forms. Stadiums is the more common usage. This is according to Webster's dictionary.

WP:ENGVAR takes precedence. Stadiums is more commonly used in the US, the country in which most of MLS plays. Per ENGVAR, region dictates which word is preferable. --Roehl Sybing 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MLS 2007 Line-up

With the inclusion of Toronto FC, there will be 13 teams in MLS 2007. Based on geographical location, Toronto FC will mostly be placed in the Eastern Conference, right? In this case, for the first time in its history, the MLS will have uneven number of teams in each Conference / Division. Are there any other new team(s) joining in 2007? (written by Henryong)

There will only be 13 teams in 2007. However, MLS might do away with conferences and go to a single table format like in most European leagues. KitHutch 12:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the quick reply! If it's Single Table, wonder if MLS may adopt a playoff format similar to that currently used in USL-D1...-signed by an ANON IP

What about recent talks for MLS teams for Charlotte, North Carolina; Memphis, Tennessee; Norfolk, Virginia; and Tucson, Arizona; if not next year but for 2008? The San Jose team is the 14th team, but for the 2008 season. I figured the MLS may have a "road team" or invite over a Mexican soccer team to fill the 2007 schedule's blank spots. The MLS may double in size for the next 5 years from the sudden popularity of soccer in America. But, this is too much growth for a small professional sports league and can't keep up going from 14 to 26 teams at two or three years. They must develop a second MLS just like Arena Football League created af2 and the American Basketball Association (21st century) is actually three leagues or "conferences". 207.200.116.69 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No. They can just expand to around 30 or 32 teams or so....just like other professional leagues in the US. Fifa won't stop it. They can just go into 2 conferences. Secondly, alot of that expansion talk is just hot air. Few are far along in various aspects like San Jose, St Louis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, etc

WP Soccer in America?

Would anyone be interested in starting/joining a WP involving soccer in America. Its goals would be something along the lines of improving the quality of soccer articles in the US.XYZ CrVo 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do what I can. I live in the States, but I'm English by birth. I've coached on and off over here, but my knowledge of the league set-up is pretty limited, I'm afraid. - Dudesleeper 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd help too... but I'm opposite... American living in England - Jazznutuva 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested. Bill Oaf 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. м info 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Empty Stadium Photo

What is the purpose of posting a photograph of a near empty stadium in New England? This is not the norm in the league and the picture serves absolutely no purpose. User:OKTerrific 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the purpose was to show why MLS needs soccer-specific stadiums. In the photo, the pitch is marked with American football lines and an MLS average crowd of 15,000 is lost in a giant NFL stadium that seats 70,000. KitHutch 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The game had not started yet, and fans were still coming into the stadium when the picture was taken. David Reject 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Is the MLS really "the top soccer league of Canada", given that it has one Canadian team which hasn't even kicked a ball yet? Sure, the MLS will have a much higher standard of play than any Canadian domestic competition, and Toronto will automatically become the country's best soccer team pretty much by by default, but the MLS can't be Canada's top league with just one Canadian representative, can it? 81.104.160.179 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the EPL the top league of Wales? Or the A-League the top league of New Zealand? KitHutch 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I don't know anything about New Zealand football, but I think the Welsh comparison is a good one. No Welsh team has ever played in the "EPL", but even if Cardiff make it this season it doesn't matter; the top league of Wales as recognised by UEFA is the League of Wales, and the three Football League clubs based in Wales - by some distance the three strongest teams in the country - are recognised as playing in what is essentially a "foreign" league, as are the smattering of Welsh teams who play in the lower reaches of the English football pyramid. Point is, just because the best team (or teams) from one country play in a league based in the territory of and organised under the aegis of a "foreign" federation, that league doesn't become the de facto "top league" of that country. Chelsea are not recognised as champions of Wales. Neither are Cardiff City, despite finishing higher than any other Welsh club for the last six or so years. Put it another way; if the MLS is now Canada's top league, then either DC United are the defending champions of Canada (?!) or Toronto are Canadian champions by default. Neither of those makes any sense to me, and I'd love to know how they hope to reconcile all of this with CONCACAF, but then I know nothing at all about football in Canada. Man, what a lot of typing early on Christmas Eve. I have to go shopping now. 81.104.160.179 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The United Soccer Leagues is the top flight in Canada, apparently. I'd say that, accepting the Welsh and NZ views, in this case Major League Soccer cannot be considered the Canadian top flight. Below MLS (which is US-only, with the addition of, as you say, Toronto FC) the USL is the top US and Canada league. So, I agree with you, that it should not be considered the Canadian top flight. Maybe I'm technically wrong, I don't know, but USL 1st Division seems more logical. Psyklax 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

redundant and irrelevant information

This page is filled with redundant information; the single-entity structure of the league, for example, is mentioned at least three times. One of the more recent changes was an adding of a section about players and competitions, which have already been mentioned in other sections. I've removed some text but I'm sure I didn't remove them all.

Much of this page also makes comparisons to other leagues and other countries which are irrelevant (i.e. alright, I get it: the US is geographically huge, don't need a reference to tell spell it out for me); I can't find similar comparisons in pages for those other leagues and countries.

As this page is incredibly large at 53K, alot of trimming needs to take place. -Roehl Sybing 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

TV

Will MLS games be on Rogers or Fox?

Player identification help

I found an excellent source of player photos from the 2006 MLS Cup, but I'm having trouble identifying some of the people. For the players I could identify, I've already uploaded their pictures, but I need help for some others. The photos are at [3]. In the 3rd and 4th rows, who are all these people (besides Piotr Nowak at the end of row 3 and Matt Reis at the end of row 4)? Are they people we have articles on so that we can use these pics? Please help! Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MLS and foreign stars

I'm not very happy with this section, it needs some cleaning up. For example, "Who knows which elite world-class athlete will be next?" This is NOT Wikipedia style. I would've changed it myself but it was the general feeling I was displeased with so I thought I'd mention it to you guys. Suggestions? Psyklax 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we get rid of the "cheer-leading" attitude some of the editors have taken to adding on this page. Sure we can point out the reasons for optimism for the league, but it should not be done in such a manner. Even I, a big fan of MLS, thought it smacked of propaganda. Oh, and if you're wondering what edits I'm responsible for on the page, look no further than the ownership & profitability sections-I started both of those and did the original early revisions that are still mostly with the page today. Those sections, though, also are in need of some cleaning up. I think the Fire information in profitability ought to go, but I may be overruled. Drakeguy 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was just a list of foreign players crucial to the early years of the league. These foreign players were voted into MLS All-Star Games and Best XI's, and won all kinds of league awards. Now, the Early American Players - the Harkes and Balboas - that's another interesting story. The Foreign Star (Ex. Etchevarry) and the American Player (Ex. Harkes) - two important groups of players in the early years of MLS, certainly facts worthy of note somewhere in our wiki I would think. da bum 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

TV, Radio, and Internet Broadcast Coverage

This section strikes me as a little too promotional. I have already deleted the line: "Check local listings for local tv and radio coverage in your area." I am considering deleting the remainder of the section if there is no objection in the next few days. --Cougs2000 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• TV money is an important part of sports these days, thus it deserves to be listed. Nyrmetros 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree...and the financial side of the MLS's TV deals is discussed in the "profitability" section of the article. The "TV, Radio, and Internet Broadcast Coverage" section seems to be more promotional in that it is telling people where they can find MLS games in their TV listings...I don't believe that Wikipedia is intended for such promotional purposes. I will take more comments, however, before deleting the section. --Cougs2000 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

cleanup required

I just added the cleanup tag to this article. As I expressed before, lots (and now, lots more) of irrelevant, unimportant and redundant information have littered this article. Some here have suggested remedies for individual sections of the article; I'm proposing something more of a widescale review and rewrite. Many sections can be merged together or spun off into additional pages, while I believe major portions of the article should be deleted altogether (i.e. it shouldn't be necessary to detail every rebranding or every stadium situation). I'll be happy to do the cleanup if no one objects or gets to it before me, but I'll wait a few days for comments. Roehl Sybing 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and cleanup this article. I just tried to clean up the MLS Club names section. I too think this article is way too long. It's longer than the articles on most European leagues that have existed for 100 years and MLS has existed for only 12 seasons. KitHutch 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is done - if people are bothered by some of the changes, they are free to discuss it here. I'm thinking of cutting out the Organization section entirely, as it fails WP:NOT, and single-entity structure is already mentioned elsewhere. Again, I'll wait a couple of days for any responses. Roehl Sybing 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think section 1.2: Club names and Section 3: MLS and foreign stars Can both go. --Elliskev 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I did: I moved the competition format up, removed Organization and Foreign Stars, and added to the history section while giving "expansion, contraction...", "ownership" et al. their own section under Organization. History, I think, should focus more on the on-field product than anything else, and it really didn't before now. Roehl Sybing 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything else to be done to remove the cleanup tag? Rballou 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed my own tag, satisfied that the article is sufficiently culled of alot of useless information. I suggest, though, that statistics and notable players be spun off into a new page. The new table for MLS Cup results also doesn't need to be on this page as there is also a separate page for MLS Cup; I have left it there for someone else to delete if they agree. All in all, this page is alot better than before, but still requires a bit of work. --Roehl Sybing 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time writing the "MLS and Foreign Stars" section (now deleted). Hated to see it go, but, overall, I think the article is much, much better now than before. Lean and mean. Great job! You know, though, in the early years, if there would have been no Marco Etchevarry's, there would have been no league! Today we have our American players. But, maybe I didn't do it the best way, but, somehow, I just felt - and stil feel - that somehow these foreign players deserve some kind of special mention in the early history of MLS. Best regards. da bum 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

playoffs confusion

I'm sure I could look this up on BigSoccer, but I find the playoff section confusing. It seems to imply that the teams that get in are: 1W, 2W, 1E, 2E, and then the next four regardless of conference, by points. But then it talks about conference championships. That introduces a question or two. Say 5 western teams and 3 eastern teams contest the playoffs. Does one western team "cross over" into the east, like Canadian gridiron apparently goes? Nacional Tijuana aka --{{User:Coryma}} 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's nice when people answer their own questions! Not so confusing after all! --Roehl Sybing 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the wording is, for me and some others, ambiguous. But, I'll take that as a "You are correct about the "crossover", sir.", since even the MLS page seems not to want its fans to know the truth. --{{User:Coryma}} 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a Wikipedia article. It has no feelings or desires, hence the word "want" seems kind of odd. I have added the playoff crossover into the article, but if it is not sufficient or if doesn't make you happy (as it appears), remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source either; if you are dissatisfied with the content, research it and rewrite it. --Roehl Sybing 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

salary cap

maybe I just missed it but does MLS have a cap? and if so what kind... thanks the TRUTH 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MLS does have a salary cap. It is around $2 million per team. Each team is also allowed to sign one player whose salary does not count against the cap. KitHutch 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

History section

I moved a recent edit to the history section to organization, as much of the revision was more related to the business end of league matters. I was wondering if we can keep the history section to the actual events on the field and immediately-related issues (i.e. notable player transfers). I placed an expand tag at the beginning of the section because I was looking to see if other editors could contribute what they know about game history, NOT about expansion/TV coverage/SSS/etc. For one, it has its own place in organization, and also, there's too many details about it! Even if it's not possible for league history to be more expansive than league organization, I want to see if we can strive towards a balance. Not trying to be confrontational about it, and not to claim ownership of the section itself, but absent consensus otherwise, I will continue to revise the section accordingly. --Roehl Sybing 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to pointedly disagree Roehl. American soccer, and especially Major League Soccer, has never been just about the sport on the field. The shared entity nature, the centralization of league player contracts, the lack of professional referees until this year, etc-all this is key to this league's history. Yes the league is out there to promote soccer, but we should never forget that this league's playing history and commercial history are very intertwined. For example, every league owner buys an investment (owns a part) of the Soccer United Marketing company, a company with rights to just about every US soccer property imaginable. So for us to NOT include things like the recent commercial events in the history section would be letting down the readers of wikipedia. They deserve to know the FULL STORY, both on the field and off it. Otherwise they wouldn't really know why MLS is doing as well as it is currently.

My motion is for us to include the TV rights deal (this is huge in league history, as its the first time anyone in the US has paid TV rights for a domestic soccer league), the shirt sponsors (first major sporting league to allow jersey front sponsors-another key development in sports history here in N. America), as well as the designated player rule and youth development. The play on the field is all interconnected with this league's ability to finance itself. Witness the effect of the league suddenly receiving 20 million dollars in TV rights money every year has had. Suddenly the league had enough security to allow the Designated Player Rule, push the youth development system and add full-time professional referees. In addition, the sudden changes in ownership and the building of soccer stadiums has also been a key part of this league's history, one that arguably also effects the players (have their own facilities and everything).

To sum up, I think we should cover in addition to the play on the field-the TV rights' deals, the jersey sponsorship decision, the Designated Player Rule (which should have been mentioned in conjunction with Beckham and Blanco anyway), the youth development system, and the stadiums and ownership situation. Taken together, it would paint a FAR MORE ACCURATE picture of this league's history to our readers. Drakeguy 04:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand this argument, hence this is why I kept a lot of your edit intact when I moved it. But I was dismayed that your edit had very little (in fact, nothing) to contribute in the way of "the sport on the field," as you put it. Absent that connection between the events on the field and off of it - a connection that you argue for - for the article's sake, it belongs in the organization section.

What troubles me is that your edit made the 2006-present sub-section MORE about the off-field matters than the play of the past two seasons. A whopping four paragraphs about the offseason in the final sub-section almost matched the ENTIRE length of the history section prior to your edit. That seems to me a bit too imbalanced IMO, and obscures the very history you're trying to detail. In short, I believe your edit did not reflect your thinking here.

Also, it is absurd to imply that a lot of the topics you have mentioned have not been included in this article. The organization section explores much of these topics far in-depth, and provides important dates for important events in the business development of the league.

In addition, I dispute your implication that American soccer is not primarily about "the sport on the field." I can imagine similar off-field deals and developments in basketball, football, etc. that have been just as integral in those sports as they have been in soccer. The same would perhaps hold true for soccer in other countries. In fact, I very much prefer how history is sorted out for the article La Liga, and I like the balance between on-field content and off-field content in the NASCAR article.

Once again, I am proposing that sort of balance. Organization already addresses TV rights, jersey sponsorship, DP rule, single-entity etc. You are free to edit that section so it reflects events more chronologically - the rule changes sub-section, as well as the TV coverage sub-section, are already sorted by time.

All of this emphasizes my main point that the off-field history has been well-documented for the benefit of Wikipedia readers (while acknowledging that some gaps may still exist), while the on-field history has been largely ignored up until the cleanup earlier this year, and continues to be ignored while editors add more details to already-explored concepts. This, I believe, is the true disservice to the readers of this article. My vote is for a more accurate balance in the article's content. --Roehl Sybing 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you the point on the on-field history being under-covered, but not mentioning the Designated Player Rule as it relates to the league's play on the field (and the signing of David Beckham, Blanco, Claudio Reyna and Juan Pablo Angel)? Or how about the creation of the league's Reserve Division back in 2005? And to say nothing of the first "homegrown" player, Josmer Altidore, whose play HAS effected the play on the field that you mention, thus making the youth development system at least worth a mention in the overall league history section.

And the TV rights deal does have something to do with the play on the field-for one thing it has allowed the league to finance the pay of the foreign star players being acquired right now. And it's also historic for the reason that it's the FIRST TIME EVER that domestic broadcasters have paid rights fees for a domestic pro soccer league. Even back in the days of the Cosmos you didn't see that!

I quote you, "In addition, I dispute your implication that American soccer is not primarily about "the sport on the field.""-Oh really? Have you even read the organization section? American soccer was always, until recently, about making the sport financially viable first and THEN after that occurred, improving the quality of play on the field. Why else would the league have the structure it does of central ownership, of shared costs, of shared revenues, and team salary caps? This is a league that lost 34 million dollars in 1998 before Garber came in. Were it not for the MLS' structure it would never have survived this long, so no, I don't think this league was primarily about the sport on the field until recently. American sports owners support the sport (seen by Phil Anschutz' devotion to the league), but ultimately they want to make money.

This is not a European league, and as such should not be covered like one. The English Premier League may have no issues attracting huge amounts of money, but for the once struggling MLS, money issues play a far more prominent role in its history (affecting the play on the field dramatically in terms of talent the MLS can afford to attract). With the 20 million dollars the league now receives in TV rights fees it can afford to pay for the talent that you are now seeing come to the US.

So no, I still don't agree 100% with you here. These things, while covered in depth elsewhere, should at least merit a mention in the overall history section of the league's wikipedia page. (that'd be the 2005 creation of the Reserve Division, the TV rights deal signed in 2006, the creation of the youth development system as it relates to Josmer Altidore, and the Designated Player Rule as it relates to Beckham and others now coming to the US to play (it was not even mentioned in the history section as to why the MLS was suddenly signing these players, leaving readers clueless until they read later sections)) Drakeguy 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about-"The 2007 season will see fans greet familiar faces, namely in the MLS debut of David Beckham, whose signing has been seen as a coup for American soccer. The departure of Clint Dempsey to Fulham, and the New York Red Bulls debut of former United States captain Claudio Reyna, highlights an exchange of top prospects to Europe for veteran experience to the United States. Many other well-known foreign players have followed Beckham and Reyna to MLS for the 2007 season, including Juan Pablo Ángel (to New York), Cuauhtémoc Blanco (to Chicago), Guillermo Barros Schelotto (to Columbus), Luciano Emilio (to D.C.), Ronald Waterreus (to New York), and Abel Xavier (to Los Angeles Galaxy).[1] Former United States coach Bruce Arena will face his first full season in MLS since leaving DC United to manage the national team, while Taylor Twellman has committed himself in the long-term to the Revolution."

NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF THE DESIGNATED PLAYER RULE in relation to those Designated players being signed by MLS teams! How's someone who doesn't know anything about the MLS expected to understand the salary cap rules (or why the Galaxy can afford to pay Beckham 5.5 million/year) when you've got their buds in LA, Chivas USA, paying the league's lowest team salary of just 1.9 million dollars? Drakeguy 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)