Talk:Major League Soccer

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

---

MLS Cup Playoffs?

What is the MLS postseason called? Is it the MLS Playoffs? Or is it like the NHL, where its called the MLS Cup Playoffs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.181.218 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is called the MLS Cup Playoffs.[1] Greatness21 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Who Runs the League?

Does the Candadian FA have any say in how MLS is run? If not (which I suspect is the case) then the CSA should not be included in associations involved. Toronto FC is a Canadian club playing in the American league system, much like Cardiff City and Swansea (both Welsh teams) that play in the English Pyramid. The Welsh FA however doesn't get to be involved with how the Premier League or the Football League is run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.190.13 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't beleive the CSA has any influence in the way the league is run. As far as I know the only major MLS officials are Commissioner Don Garber, and possibly President Mike Abbot. The main League Officials can be found on the MLS site.[2]Greatness21 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

CONCACAF Champions League

Guys, take a look at what was posted on the Soccer America website recently: *[3] 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)

As far as I know there is NO tournament known as the "Champions League" and if there is is has not taken place in 2007. Greatness21 21:06, 20 October 2007 (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 (United Soccer Leagues 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))

It's True:the U.S. Open Cup is not an MLS competition. I would support it being taken off from the MLS box. The recognition can be placed in the awards section of a teams page. I don't think however, that we have to conform to the universal soccer box. Greatness21 21:10, 20 October 2007 (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)

You're an idiot. The name football has nothing to do with the fact that you kick the ball with the feet, it has to do with the fact that it was played on the ground as opposed to on horseback. Look at the article on football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.190.13 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2007 (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: [4]. 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

The talent pool is just not big enough for them to do that right now. The USSF seems to follow in England's example for most ideas, so the most teams I can see them having is 20-24 for the top level. And even that is a lot. Greecepwns (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

The comparison with the Welsh Premiership is interesting, but there is a decisive difference, the Canadian FA recognise the MLS as the top Canadian League (as officially it is a US and Canadian League) and the North American FA (CONCACAF ) also feel this way. The top Canadian league does not send teams to the CONCACAF club competitions, only the MLS can. So ‘officially speaking‘, which Wiki articles must be, the MLS is the top Canadian league. People can say that competitively speaking the MLS doesn’t represent the top Canadian league because there is currently one team in it, but the official line is clear. Interestingly under the current system this means that Toronto FC cant play other Canadian teams in competitive matches, but Cardiff could potentially face Airbus UK (of the Welsh Premier) in a European cup match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.88.123 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 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 [5]. 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)

Exactly which elite world class athletes are you talking about? The MLS never gets players until they are washed up. Do you really think Real Madrid would have sold David Beckham to the LA Galaxy if he was still playing good? He's past his glory days. Just look at Juan Pablo Angel. He's supposedly the best in the league right now, having won player of the month for may 2007. I'm colombian and i can tell you that Angel is a joke in Colombia. Nobody wants him. He was with Aston Villa for a long time and did absolutely nothing, that's why he went to the MLS. I've never heard of an elite player in their prime being sold into the US, except maybe Galvan Rey who wasn't that good anyway.

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)

Actually, their salary does count against the cap, but only $400,000 of it. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

History section

NOTE: Your recent edits are MUCH BETTER than before. It is a lot more balanced than the league operation overkill you sought for the history section not too long ago. --Roehl Sybing 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about you misunderstanding the comments I made on the organization section. I have a tendency to use caustic humor that others may not catch onto when I'm amused by someone's editing or comments. For example, "::In addition, I dispute your implication that American soccer is not primarily about "the sport on the field.""

Now a quick look at the very beginning of the organization section itself would have been more than enough for you to have figured out why I was asking if you'd read it. Quote, "Organization

Major League Soccer has been known more for its front office and management dealings than its on-field product [1]. In the off-season, expansion, contraction and rebranding have become buzzwords for the league and its fans. Recently the league has started to focus on improving the quality of play its teams produces on the field via new rules like the Designated Player Rule and through the creation of a league-wide youth development system [2]."

See what I mean?

That said, I'm all for expanding some of these sections to full articles. What I think we should do is make mention of the really important off-field things in league history, provide links to their articles, and figure out which events and things in the league merit this treatment. Reserve Division for sure needs its own article, just like you said. I would also say that the Youth Development System in MLS will probably need to be started, although it will probably be a stub for some time. What primarily I think we need to do is to mention these things briefly, in chronological order, and then provide linked articles for our readers to mull over.

You've also got my vote on the single entity league organization structure article-every new American league seems to have adopted it in an effort to contain costs and maximize profits. Definitely a notable thing in sports these days.

And one thing-there is a considerable difference between the sports culture of European "clubs" and MLS "franchises". The words alone should explain why this league's page is somewhat different than say the Dutch Eredivise's page. Drakeguy 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the distinctions you've drawn between MLS and other leagues/sports seem very compelling to me. They call it clubs, we call them franchises. They call it football, we call it soccer. I before e except after c. Sorry, just not convinced.

I was the one who wrote the intro to the organization section. The fact that it's in the organization section is proof that league operations belong primarily in that section.

Just don't be so heavy with the league business in EVERY section. On-field history deserves a place that is primarily its own, and sorely needs expansion. It is a shame that you have nothing to contribute along those lines, so all I can ask you for is balance. As I said, your edits are much better, but I'm going to say they can still use improvement. Frankly, I'm fine with what's there in terms of league operations mentions in the history section, let's not spoil it. --Roehl Sybing 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with what's there? Even if it doesn't mention a number of on-field related events like the youth development system or state when the Designated Player Rule came into effect? And you didn't write the intro to the organization section. I know because for one thing I had to re-edit it to how it stands today. You might have started it, but you shouldn't claim everything.

And I do think there is a very distinct set of differences between European and American football(soccer). In Europe, the league's have promotion and relegation (no leagues in American history have had this), they also have NO salary caps, whereas in the MLS you do have salary caps. In Europe you have overall league governing bodies like here in the US, but one buys a European club only to win (except for new American owners), whereas the goal of a MLS franchise owner is to both win and profit. Why else would Abrahmovic (Chelsea's owner) care absolutely nothing about how much money he spends to win while Phil Anschutz's LA Galaxy were bragging about how they've already made their money back on David Beckham? That's a HUGE sports culture difference.

Also you have no centralization of player contracts in Europe-Name me one European league where the central league office conducts and holds all player contracts. Name me one European league with a single entity organization. Name me a major European league that purposely restricts the number of foreign players in its squads. Name me a major European club that would ever consider moving itself to an entirely new metro area-this has happened in MLS and in most American sports leagues. Name me one European league that plays its season primarily during the summer. That is just the beginning of the differences between MLS and European leagues.

Quote, "It is a shame that you have nothing to contribute along those lines, so all I can ask you for is balance."-Yes, it's a good thing one of us isn't taking this personally, although I find it entertaining that you think the only thing I've ever contributed to this page had to deal with league organization. When you make such a critique, then be prepared to back it with your own editing history. And seeing as how you haven't done much for a history section you call shabby, I'm inclined to believe you need to start backing your own words with more additions to the history section. Drakeguy 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that is not a personal slam. I'm simply saying you should take it as a challenge to improve the section. Your critiques are all well-intentioned, but I would appreciate it if you would make a considerable effort on your part in improving the section you are complaining about. I've at least gotten a start on it. Hopefully you can impress everyone with your alluded-to editing ability. I hope to see your editing efforts shortly. Drakeguy 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

World Cup years

I haven't found the answer to this in wiki or the whole interweb (so I probably missed it), but what does the MLS do during the WC summer? I can't imagine that they just carry on regardless. I'm guessing that they have a gap for a month or two, but I genuinely don't have a clue. (Incidently, if Galaxy are concerned about Becks being away for England matches imagine how they'll feel if he gets picked in the Euro2008 squad! :Z) Aheyfromhome 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure that they just play the season normally any way, but try to schedule more games after the WC ends. MLS season goes until October, so MLS usually gets a boost in attendance after the world cup (especially when the US teams does well). Anyone please correct me if I am wrong. --Crosscountrycpjon 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

During the last World Cup, MLS carried on as normal. It was the only league in the world that continued to play during the World Cup. KitHutch 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wow, thats a really good fact. Worthy of being put in the article if we can find some sort of reference for it. Aheyfromhome 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion / Relegation

There is no mention of it. I know there is no promotion system in the MLS, it would be nice to know the official reasoning behind it and if there are any plans, talks or the lack thereof.

I remember reading statements from MLS stating that promotion/relegation is a long-term goal for the future, but not something that is possible at this time (likely due to financial constraints). I don't have a concrete article reference, I just remember reading it at one point or another. In my personal opinion, unless some kind of deal is reached with USL, promotion/relegation will never happen in MLS, or at least not for many many years from now. Also, remember to sign your posts please. --Crosscountrycpjon 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players and Former Notable Players

I would like to know how we come about designing a list of 'notable' players (current and former). If anybody has a logical explanation to this I would like to know, otherwise, I don't think that this 'controversial' section should be included in the article. USSoccerfan11301993 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The list needs some serious trimming. At least two thirds of the players on the list aren't notable at all.

89.152.28.21 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have been considering this issue for a while now. My belief is that the whole section should be removed as notable player lists can be found on individual team entries. Additionally, there is no reason to prove to readers that the league has a large amount of "notable players" most of which few people recognize. м info 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. If enough people agree, I see no reason why we should consider such a list. USSoccerfan11301993 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

International Tournaments in History section

It seems to me that even though this article is devoted strictly to MLS, we should be making an effort to catalogue the international play and successes of its clubs. Currently there is very little in the History section on international play, although I have added the inaugural Superliga because I think it merits attention. If anyone else could please help improve the section by finding what competitions MLS teams have won internationally, that would be a big help. Drakeguy 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the 3rd point of the Competition format

After the first sentence the next 2 lines get really confusing; specifically:

... In the event that a team which finishes fifth or lower in their conference qualifies, that team will be placed in the other conference's playoff bracket [#1]. In the first round of this knockout tournament, aggregate goals over two matches determine the winners; the Conference Championships are one match each [#2], with the winner of each conference advancing to MLS Cup.

1. What do you mean by playoff bracket? What are the repercutions of this?
2. You specify the way to determine winners, then a semilcolon and then talk about the Conference Championships... are these part of the play offs? What's the special importance of the Conference Championships?

The playoff system is a knockout competition of the top 8 teams in MLS to decide the champion, like most other American sports (just recently, the Super Bowl).

The top 2 in each conference make the playoffs. Then the next 4 teams overall, regardless of conference, make the playoffs. This means 5 can make it out of one conference, and 3 from the other (which happens many times). The 5th team is placed as the 4th seed in the other conference's bracket.

The Conference Championships is the semifinals of the playoffs which determines the winners of each conference which will face each other in the finals. The first round of the playoffs a is 2 leg aggregate, while the conference championships and final are 1 only one game.

I hope that helps.Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

sponsors in team list: why?

No other prominent soccer league in the world (and indeed, no soccer league in this country) has a corresponding Wikipedia article where it is deemed important to list the sponsors that each team has. I'm not nearly convinced of why this page should list sponsors for corresponding teams. --Roehl Sybing 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• • While our leagues may not list jersey sponsors in their articles, many teams do list their jersey sponsors. There is no Wikipedia rule that all football league pages have to be the same. KitHutch 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Many teams also list their players, while this page does not. Should we list all of them as well? How about jersey colors? Number of different jerseys? Number of jersey redesigns over the years? Longest name ever to be printed on each team jersey? I still don't see the significance. The rule for Wikipedia isn't "whether or not it's allowed," it's whether or not it's notable. Team sponsors on a league article? Far from it. --Roehl Sybing 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why jersey sponsorship isn't notable? Just because one person objects to the information doesn't make it non-notable. KitHutch 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Is this the best argument for notability? I believe an affirmative argument making the case for the information's significance with respect to the article in which it is contained has to be made. --Roehl Sybing 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
          • "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." (my emp.) Squirrel Killer 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
            • From the same guideline (emphasis mine): "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. For example, adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources. --Roehl Sybing 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Again, that refers to topics, not content within. Squirrel Killer 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                • Not trying to be difficult, but I don't believe the guideline makes that distinction. The qualifier "for example" at the end of the quote implies that the principle is open-ended and not restricted to whether or not article creation is warranted. It doesn't make sense to apply a guideline specifically to a "topic" that wouldn't apply to the "content" in that topic. --Roehl Sybing 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • It does make that distinction. In fact, the second page of guideline for notability is that distinction and there's a section ("Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content") specifically for that distinction. Since that distinction is so clearly defined, it makes sense by definition. Squirrel Killer 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • Just because it doesn't directly limit article content does not rule out a content argument based on notability. Either way, I have to insist on someone detailing the notability of the details in question. Otherwise, you don't mind if I insert a couple of extra columns for other information, too? Information about jersey colors seems important to me, maybe also highlight teams with designated players as well as the names of designated players. --Roehl Sybing 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not only does the Premier League, the Scottish Premier League and the FAI League of Ireland pages for their current seasons have shirt sponsors, they have the uniform manufacturers as well. While such a factoid taken alone may not be very notable, it is valid information about the team. Squirrel Killer 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I stand corrected (I should've looked at it more closely). Nonetheless, the question of notability remains. I don't like the current policy Wikipedia has about trivia, but I do think the information has to be relevant to the article in question. On team pages, it seems relevant enough if people want it, but on this page it seems like another way to get insert indiscriminate information into the article. Like I said, I think if we're going to allow what teams shirt sponsors have, let's have other equally "valid" information in the table as well. Maybe jersey colors, or local television/radio coverage (which has been deleted when presented as a section), or profit/loss information, etc. Those things, to me, are equally "valid," and are more interesting in my opinion. --Roehl Sybing 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Soccer fans seem to have a significant interest in their shirt sponsors. No, I don't understand it either. Given how frequently this information is included on other league pages, I suspect that this issue might be better addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football Squirrel Killer 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in this article. --Roehl Sybing 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying this fight shouldn't be fought, I'm just saying that given the number of articles it could influence, it would better be fought in another place. Squirrel Killer 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I concur with Squirrel Killer; this is a larger question for WikiProject Football. The precedent for including shirt sponsors has already been set by other leagues' articles. If that factoid is deemed too trivial, then it should be removed from all league articles. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MLS attendance figures

I added the average team attendance for 2007, to complement the stadium capacity. I know this is unpopular with one person, for unknown reasons, but it should be on the table. Otherwise, why have the stadium capacity? It's a bit deceptive to imply that a MLS team is filling an 80,000 seat football stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I buy this logic. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The MLS attendance figures are already listed on the individual team pages. The team table is getting bloated. Some of the non-essential (or repeated) information needs to be removed. KitHutch (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why not eliminate the jersey sponsor since half the teams don't have one anyway? Or better yet I'd strongly suggest removing the "Previous names" section. No other sport has that as they're largely irrelevant and listed many times in the history sections of the respective team's articles and in the team's infoboxes. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll agree to that. We really need to streamline the team page since it is becoming so bloated. KitHutch (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I put the 2007 attendance figures back. Please quit removing them, Kit. Why are you so afraid of them? If you are obsessed with removing something, remove the stadium capacity. That's the most irrelevant piece of information in the table, especially without the attendance figures. Besides, the attendance figures are obviously one of the pieces of information people are most interested in, and just because it is now 2008, it doesn't mean that people don't want to know what the average attendance of the LAST FULL SEASON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to fix your grammar. Are you "afraid" of capital letters? I am not "afraid" of the 2007 attendance figures. They do not belong in a chart about the 2008 teams. Attendance figures are already listed on the teams' pages. I see no reason for the stadium capacity so I think that that should be removed too. We don't need every bit of information about MLS teams on this chart. It's getting too big. KitHutch (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• The attendance figures FROM THE LAST FULL SEASON allows people to know how popular each team is. It makes it much more difficult to compare the teams fanbases if you have to go to each individual team page. Why are you so offended by that? Obviously, you're the only one who is troubled by having it on the table. You even agreed that the attendances should stay (see your comments from January 10th), so if you keep deleting them, they'll keep reappearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to having last season's attendance on the 2008 team table. I agreed that the jersey sponsors and previous names sections should be removed. KitHutch (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop deleting the attendence figures. Now you're just doing it out of spite. It would be unfortunate if we had to protect the page from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just keep the attendance figures for now. I don't think there's an actual argument against them, and it's just become an editing war.

Petitepassionz (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the attendance figures should be on this page, especially in the 2008 team chart. Why not add the attendance figures for every season so that we can see how the "popularity" of each team has changed over the years? Why not both the highest single game attendance for each team on the chart? How about median attendance? That's a more accurate measure of a team's attendance statistically. I propose that they be added to the individual season summaries and removed from this page. KitHutch (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty minor thing. The same arguments could be made to remove every other item in the table. I personally don't think that the chart suddenly becomes overcrowded when the attendance is added, and it seems like a pretty basic statistic. Especially if the stadium capacity is listed. There's no reason to hide information.Petitepassionz (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main pages for Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League list venue capacity, but not previous season's average. The main pages for the National Football League and the National Basketball Association list neither capacity nor averages. Various soccer leagues' season pages tend to list capacities, but not averages. Perhaps the best place for averages would be in the individual season pages, since that's where they're directly relevant. Squirrel Killer (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be consistent with other articles. The average attendance should be removed. It should go on individual team pages and under each specific season. KitHutch (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. If we want to keep attendance however an attendance section could be added to the article listing all team's attendance over the past 12 years. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion has just convinced me that MLS is bullshit. Get a life people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.180.55 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

if you aren't going to have the attendance figures, then the stadium capacity shouldn't be there. it's deceptive to suggest that a mls team could fill an NFL stadium, which seems to be the underlying motivation in this debate. obviously, redbull new york is not as popular as the ny giants or jets. or even almost every other team in the mls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.204.144 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact template on CSA

I had thought of removing the unsourced statement linking MLS to the Canadian Soccer Association, but since MLS has a team in Toronto, I decided to keep everything. I could remove the tag, but then again I don't know what would happen. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

caroline johnson is the most beautiful soccer player ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.97.140 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Champions

Shouldn't the "Current Champions" section on the infobox show the Supporters' Shield winner as well as the MLS Cup holder? Charles 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be something worth noting in the infobox. Kobain (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely should be noted. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the infobox, since it didn't seem like anyone else was actually going to do it. Kobain (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)