PDA

View Full Version : MLS and early English football



Oldtimer
09-01-2009, 07:12 AM
I'm currently reading Goldblatt's "The Ball is Round," which is a history of the World game. http://www.amazon.ca/Ball-Round-David-Goldblatt/dp/0141015829/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251805895&sr=8-2

It is very interesting to see the strong parallels between his description of the early English game and MLS. We are familiar with English football as it stands today, with the phenomenal success of the EPL. What most of us are unfamiliar is what the early English game looked like a hundred-plus years ago. It didn't have a single-entity or Fieldturf, but there was a lot in common. Here are several things that parallel MLS, and can give us hope that MLS will one day become a high-level league:

(1) English football started as an amateur participant sport that didn't have a pro league. Only in 1885 was pro soccer legalized by the FA.

(2) the early pro clubs didn't have a national league to play in. Instead, they played in a variety of cup competitions, much like Rep soccer is played today in North America.

(3) When the Football League was set up, it had only 12 teams. There was only one level, and admission to the league was on a franchise-like system (without multimillion-dollar franchise fees, it must be said) where individual investors and their clubs were admitted to the league. After a while clubs were banging down the doors to try to get in.

(4) The league played it's early days on simple fenced fields or on fields belonging to cricket clubs (imagine playing football on a field with cricket markings!).

(5) The league eventually grew to 20 clubs. Eventually they set up a League 2 that also grew to 20 clubs. There was no promotion/relegation between these two leagues. That only came later.

(6) Later on there was a Football specific stadium building boom. Cheap, utilitarian stadiums were built for the sport.

(7) There was a salary cap, although it was in the form of a maximum salary per player, not per team. Although the players set up a Players Union, it was weak at first, and had to agree to a cap.

(8) Attendance was sparse, at first. The big deal was the FA cup, and only 17,000 attended the Cup final in 1888, less than many MLS matches draw today. Eventually attendance grew.

(9) Away support was mostly absent in the early days, except for local derbys.

(10) The first sponsors of the teams were without glamour, like OXO boullion cubes.

(11) There was a crowded sports landscape, with cricket and rugby being popular sports that were ahead of football in the early years.

(12) Journalists at first ignored pro football. Eventually there were publications for football. Mainstream coverage only came later, and one early article on the sport focused more on the fans than the game itself.

If we look at the EPL today, we see a huge gap between it and MLS. However, if we look at where English football came from, how much it grew over the years, it can give us hope that MLS will one day grow into the major league it's name claims to be.

rocker
09-01-2009, 08:08 AM
very interesting. I may have to look up that book.

it's definitely problematic when people compare what they know (Premier League) to MLS. Even the Premier League took many decades to get to this point after, as you say, a long slow history of development. I guess we want things fast.
But I always wondered if people in the 1910s or 1920s complained that their leagues were not good enough or they needed to grow???? ;)

Derko
09-01-2009, 08:14 AM
Very Interesting,after reading your highlights and comments perhaps people will stop trying to compare the MLS with the EPL and other top leagues around the world, I think the average football fan, (in particular in Toronto with the rich football heritage and tradition from other countries) are somewhat spoiled with watching top clubs and leagues, I know I was, but have come to the realization and expectation that TFC and MLS are basically in it's infancy and will take years of support from educated and knowlegable fans as ourselves.

Cheers I will have to give the book a read.

C.Ronaldo
09-01-2009, 08:50 AM
the EPL didnt have anything to draw or learn from though. MLS does, and still make silly mistakes


p.s

when I was in madeira, i visisted my Dad's town Camacha, where the first organized game was played in all of Portugal.

An Englishmen Harry Hinton (son of a miller) decided to organize a game with locals and English sailors in 1875.

hundred and some odd years later, ronaldo was born.

Thanks England.



Harry Hinton went on to become president of the football club Maritimo in the 1940s

Beach_Red
09-01-2009, 09:33 AM
If you've ever seen Ken Burns' documentary on baseball, it's interesting to see how it developed in the USA around the same time.

I also find it interesting that when American football started in the US it was strictly a school game and for decades the pro game was small, regional and not anywhere as poplar or respected as baseball.

It's good to know that things can change.

jloome
09-01-2009, 10:56 AM
That first FA cup attendance may sound high, but consider how much smaller Britain is! You could have all 12 teams within a two-hour drive of one another, so the drawing area for each team, even in the days before mass transit, was fairly huge.

prizby
09-01-2009, 11:03 AM
i like the comparisons oldtimer, but let me give one of mine

People drive hours to tailgate for college football Saturday /NFL sunday game to see there favourite teams..TFC have maybe 25 of these type of fans (ie those that come from London/Buffalo etc...)

MLS needs many more dedicated fans like college football and the NFL have

C.Ronaldo
09-01-2009, 11:37 AM
its beyond me how so many NFL fans can have the time to drive hours for a game.

b/w family, work, and keeping up my home, finding 3-4 hours for a TFC game is difficult as it is let alone an entire day or weekend

tfcleeds
09-01-2009, 11:43 AM
its beyond me how so many NFL fans can have the time to drive hours for a game.

b/w family, work, and keeping up my home, finding 3-4 hours for a TFC game is difficult as it is let alone an entire day or weekend

Simple...between September and December they live for NFL/college and little else. It's often a family affair anyway, so there's no conflict as far as that goes. On Friday, just pack up the RV or pickup and head out, hit the parking lot at the stadium and start firing up the grill....

Fort York Redcoat
09-01-2009, 12:48 PM
They played on Cricket pitches because the rich played Cricket. The sport wasn't that much older or more popular, just a different class that could afford a pitch.

Still not so different from MLS now. Interesting parallels, Oldtimer.

spark
09-01-2009, 01:36 PM
I'm currently reading Goldblatt's "The Ball is Round," which is a history of the World game.

It is very interesting to see the strong parallels between his description of the early English game and MLS. We are familiar with English football as it stands today, with the phenomenal success of the EPL. What most of us are unfamiliar is what the early English game looked like a hundred-plus years ago. It didn't have a single-entity or Fieldturf, but there was a lot in common. Here are several things that parallel MLS, and can give us hope that MLS will one day become a high-level league:

If we look at the EPL today, we see a huge gap between it and MLS. However, if we look at where English football came from, how much it grew over the years, it can give us hope that MLS will one day grow into the major league it's name claims to be.

Have you read "When Saturday Comes - A Half Decent Football Book (something like that)? It's basically an anecdotal encyclopedia of football in the UK. It has the history of all the clubs going back to mid-late 1800s, how some clubs changed their name because they were banned from the leagues for paying their players. Or how Sheffield Wednesday is named that because they were originally cricket players playing football to stay in shape and their cricket games were on Wednesday etc ... if you haven't, you might find it a cool follow up.

If you're talking MLS or even US - this book is good as well, Offside: Soccer & American Exceptionalism (http://www.rednationonline.ca/book_review_offside_soccer_and_american_exceptiona lism_aug_25_09_review.shtml) (sorry for the link) all about the development/history of the game in N.America and how it was running parallel to the UK for a bit - but there is also an audio interview where the questions talk about Canada as well.

Oldtimer
09-01-2009, 01:58 PM
They played on Cricket pitches because the rich played Cricket. The sport wasn't that much older or more popular, just a different class that could afford a pitch.

Still not so different from MLS now. Interesting parallels, Oldtimer.

Exactly. The English today like to laugh at MLS being played in stadiums with NFL lines (fortunately that era is almost over). Yet if they knew their own history, they'd realize that the Football League started out doing exactly the same thing, only with Cricket lines.

TOBOR !
09-01-2009, 02:20 PM
In it's formative years the game grew from a way to keep schoolboys active. It spread around the world via foreigners studying in England (returning home with a ball and a desire to play), British Engineers and such working overseas and of course those sailors and their footballs arranging kickabouts in various ports of call (the 'unofficial empire' they refer to it as).

From nothing, over time it became a Global phenomenon.

MLS has that to build on, yet yields numbers comparative to a time when the game as we know it now did not even exist.

There is simply no comparison here.

Oldtimer
09-01-2009, 03:01 PM
the game as we know it now did not even exist.



w-h-a-a-a-t?






There is simply no comparison here.

Read the book.

C.Ronaldo
09-01-2009, 03:20 PM
i think hes trying to say you cant comapre because MLS has a foundation and places to learn from.

EPL and football in that book came from nothing, and organically grew at the same time it was exploding all over the rest of the world

MLS has models to follow, it just refuses to do so.

MLS to me, is a money issue, money for marketing, players, and stadiums.

Oldtimer
09-01-2009, 07:48 PM
MLS actually has been spooked by the NASL debacle. It's made them much more conservative than they need to be, and has held up the growth of the game over here. So I'm not sure that having examples is always an advantage.

rocker
09-01-2009, 08:10 PM
what's the example of the EPL that MLS should follow??? spend, spend, spend?
cuz i'm not sure the EPL is a model of anything but that.

TOBOR !
09-01-2009, 09:06 PM
Oldtimer, I've read it. It's very interesting (what page are you on ?).

Football in England, 10 years into it's creation, is not the same as the football that we know today. Similar enough to be instantly recognisable perhaps, but not the same.

My other point is that the game may have it's origins in various games that use a ball (most notably Folk Football), but more than 100 years ago in England it was pretty much created from the firmament.

While on the other hand, these more than 100 years on, and after a World Cup is staged in the country, MLS is just now getting to the stage the game was at over 100 years ago.

TOBOR !
09-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Sorry, had to have a go at responding to some of your points :

(1) English football started as an amateur participant sport that didn't have a pro league. Only in 1885 was pro soccer legalized by the FA.
that's because the game was just invented. You wouldn't expect there to be a league waiting about for a sport and teams to fill it, eh ?
(2) the early pro clubs didn't have a national league to play in. Instead, they played in a variety of cup competitions, much like Rep soccer is played today in North America.
that's how the game began and grew. When there were enough teams and interest was sufficient a league was created
(3) When the Football League was set up, it had only 12 teams. There was only one level, and admission to the league was on a franchise-like system (without multimillion-dollar franchise fees, it must be said) where individual investors and their clubs were admitted to the league. After a while clubs were banging down the doors to try to get in.
There were only 12 teams because that's how many agreed to the particular set of codified rules for this version of football. The others buggered off to play Rugby. The reason for the league and the rules was consistency and fairness. You'll note yourself that in the book it mentions that opposing schools would play 1 half of a game under one set of rules, and the other half using the other rules. Not to mention that often they couldn't even come to terms on how many players to field.
(4) The league played it's early days on simple fenced fields or on fields belonging to cricket clubs (imagine playing football on a field with cricket markings!).
I think you're comparing this to, say, KC playing on a baseball diamond. Surely you wouldn't expect people to begin erecting 45,000 seat stadia for their amateur clubs to play in ?
(5) The league eventually grew to 20 clubs. Eventually they set up a League 2 that also grew to 20 clubs. There was no promotion/relegation between these two leagues. That only came later.
Promotion and relegation were introduced as the League expanded to two divisions of 18 teams each in 1891 (that's just three years after the league was formed).
(8) Attendance was sparse, at first. The big deal was the FA cup, and only 17,000 attended the Cup final in 1888, less than many MLS matches draw today. Eventually attendance grew.
I should think that 17,000 people at a Cup Final in 1888 is pretty good - that being the FA's first season
(9) Away support was mostly absent in the early days, except for local derbys.
as someone else has mentioned it was trickier to get around in those days.
(11) There was a crowded sports landscape, with cricket and rugby being popular sports that were ahead of football in the early years.
I believe Rugby and Soccer formed at around the same time. Cricket was the national game of England in the 18th century.
If we look at the EPL today, we see a huge gap between it and MLS. However, if we look at where English football came from, how much it grew over the years, it can give us hope that MLS will one day grow into the major league it's name claims to be
This could only be true if MLS existed in a vaccuum

Fiin
09-01-2009, 09:53 PM
Interesting read Oldtimer. Helps put things into perspective abit eh.

TheKing7
09-02-2009, 12:47 AM
hopefully i can live to be 130 years old so i can witness the MLS at its full potential:hump:

H Bomb
09-02-2009, 01:02 AM
I agree with Tobor. Its a nice idea, but doesnt really relate

TOBOR !
09-02-2009, 07:10 AM
FWIW, there is a better book regarding the subject of the early days of soccer in England. Goldblatt's book only touches on the subject and needs to move on as it is a global history.

For further details seek out The Association Game by Dr. Matthew Taylor.

Oldtimer
09-02-2009, 07:59 AM
Tobor, here's my comments to your comments:



(1) English football started as an amateur participant sport that didn't have a pro league. Only in 1885 was pro soccer legalized by the FA.
that's because the game was just invented. You wouldn't expect there to be a league waiting about for a sport and teams to fill it, eh ?

The game was invented in the 1860's, it was not new. There had been under the table hiring of professionals for years.


(2) the early pro clubs didn't have a national league to play in. Instead, they played in a variety of cup competitions, much like Rep soccer is played today in North America.
that's how the game began and grew. When there were enough teams and interest was sufficient a league was created

The League was created to give financial stability and regular fixtures.


(3) When the Football League was set up, it had only 12 teams. There was only one level, and admission to the league was on a franchise-like system (without multimillion-dollar franchise fees, it must be said) where individual investors and their clubs were admitted to the league. After a while clubs were banging down the doors to try to get in.
There were only 12 teams because that's how many agreed to the particular set of codified rules for this version of football. The others buggered off to play Rugby. The reason for the league and the rules was consistency and fairness. You'll note yourself that in the book it mentions that opposing schools would play 1 half of a game under one set of rules, and the other half using the other rules. Not to mention that often they couldn't even come to terms on how many players to field.

There were more than 12 teams agreeing to Association rules. However, it's true that only 12 were interested in forming a league, just like MLS had a limited number of investors in the early days.


(4) The league played it's early days on simple fenced fields or on fields belonging to cricket clubs (imagine playing football on a field with cricket markings!).
I think you're comparing this to, say, KC playing on a baseball diamond. Surely you wouldn't expect people to begin erecting 45,000 seat stadia for their amateur clubs to play in ?

The stadium boom came years after professionalism.

(5) The league eventually grew to 20 clubs. Eventually they set up a League 2 that also grew to 20 clubs. There was no promotion/relegation between these two leagues. That only came later.
Promotion and relegation were introduced as the League expanded to two divisions of 18 teams each in 1891 (that's just three years after the league was formed).

Incorrect. League 2 was set up in 1891. Promotion and relegation came 7 years later (1898).

(8) Attendance was sparse, at first. The big deal was the FA cup, and only 17,000 attended the Cup final in 1888, less than many MLS matches draw today. Eventually attendance grew.
I should think that 17,000 people at a Cup Final in 1888 is pretty good - that being the FA's first season

Incorrect again. The FA Cup was founded in 1871. It was the Football League (a separate institution from the FA) that was founded in 1888.

(9) Away support was mostly absent in the early days, except for local derbys.
as someone else has mentioned it was trickier to get around in those days.

True. It's like driving to Columbus today.

(11) There was a crowded sports landscape, with cricket and rugby being popular sports that were ahead of football in the early years.
I believe Rugby and Soccer formed at around the same time. Cricket was the national game of England in the 18th century.

Rugby was founded in 1871, almost a generation before 1888.

If we look at the EPL today, we see a huge gap between it and MLS. However, if we look at where English football came from, how much it grew over the years, it can give us hope that MLS will one day grow into the major league it's name claims to be
This could only be true if MLS existed in a vaccuum[

It's true there is no vacuum, which does make things harder. However, other countries founded leagues far later than England, and had them grow into respectable institutions.

Oldtimer
09-02-2009, 08:36 AM
Oldtimer, I've read it. It's very interesting (what page are you on ?).



Page 271.

TOBOR !
09-02-2009, 09:45 AM
Here we go then (deep breath) :

(1) English football started as an amateur participant sport that didn't have a pro league. Only in 1885 was pro soccer legalized by the FA.
that's because the game was just invented. You wouldn't expect there to be a league waiting about for a sport and teams to fill it, eh ?

The game was invented in the 1860's, it was not new. There had been under the table hiring of professionals for years.


Paid players were the exception rather than the norm.

(2) the early pro clubs didn't have a national league to play in. Instead, they played in a variety of cup competitions, much like Rep soccer is played today in North America.
that's how the game began and grew. When there were enough teams and interest was sufficient a league was created

The League was created to give financial stability and regular fixtures.


(3) When the Football League was set up, it had only 12 teams. There was only one level, and admission to the league was on a franchise-like system (without multimillion-dollar franchise fees, it must be said) where individual investors and their clubs were admitted to the league. After a while clubs were banging down the doors to try to get in.
There were only 12 teams because that's how many agreed to the particular set of codified rules for this version of football. The others buggered off to play Rugby. The reason for the league and the rules was consistency and fairness. You'll note yourself that in the book it mentions that opposing schools would play 1 half of a game under one set of rules, and the other half using the other rules. Not to mention that often they couldn't even come to terms on how many players to field.

There were more than 12 teams agreeing to Association rules. However, it's true that only 12 were interested in forming a league, just like MLS had a limited number of investors in the early days.

I think a better comparison for MLS is the Australian A-League (or perhaps the Korean League)

(4) The league played it's early days on simple fenced fields or on fields belonging to cricket clubs (imagine playing football on a field with cricket markings!).
I think you're comparing this to, say, KC playing on a baseball diamond. Surely you wouldn't expect people to begin erecting 45,000 seat stadia for their amateur clubs to play in ?

The stadium boom came years after professionalism.


Probably at a time when it was realized that stadiums would be required to house the crowds that were turning out.

(5) The league eventually grew to 20 clubs. Eventually they set up a League 2 that also grew to 20 clubs. There was no promotion/relegation between these two leagues. That only came later.
Promotion and relegation were introduced as the League expanded to two divisions of 18 teams each in 1891 (that's just three years after the league was formed).

Incorrect. League 2 was set up in 1891. Promotion and relegation came 7 years later (1898).


Automatic promotion and relegation you must mean.


For the first few years, there was no automatic promotion to the First Division. Instead, the top few teams in Division Two, including the winners, contested a series of test matches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_match_(football)/oTest%20match%20(football)) against the bottom teams in Division One. Small Heath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_City_F.C./oBirmingham%20City%20F.C.), Second Division champions in 1892-93, were denied promotion after losing in test matches to Newton Heath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C./oManchester%20United%20F.C.). However, runners-up Sheffield United (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_United_F.C./oSheffield%20United%20F.C.) beat Accrington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrington_F.C./oAccrington%20F.C.) to become the first team to win promotion to the First Division. Test matches were abolished in 1898 after Burnley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnley_F.C./oBurnley%20F.C.) and Stoke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke_City_F.C./oStoke%20City%20F.C.) conspired to deliberately draw their test match 0-0, which resulted in Burnley being promoted and Stoke being saved from relegation (admittedly Wiki).

(8) Attendance was sparse, at first. The big deal was the FA cup, and only 17,000 attended the Cup final in 1888, less than many MLS matches draw today. Eventually attendance grew.
I should think that 17,000 people at a Cup Final in 1888 is pretty good - that being the FA's first season

Incorrect again. The FA Cup was founded in 1871. It was the Football League (a separate institution from the FA) that was founded in 1888.


Sorry, not the FA’s first season, rather the year that the Football League was founded (as you have corrected).

(9) Away support was mostly absent in the early days, except for local derbys.
as someone else has mentioned it was trickier to get around in those days.

True. It's like driving to Columbus today.


I’ll have to take your word for it as I’ve done neither.

(11) There was a crowded sports landscape, with cricket and rugby being popular sports that were ahead of football in the early years.
I believe Rugby and Soccer formed at around the same time. Cricket was the national game of England in the 18th century.

Rugby was founded in 1871, almost a generation before 1888.


17 years it seems. Still an infant sport practiced by amateurs I’m sure you’ll agree.

If we look at the EPL today, we see a huge gap between it and MLS. However, if we look at where English football came from, how much it grew over the years, it can give us hope that MLS will one day grow into the major league it's name claims to be
This could only be true if MLS existed in a vaccuum

It's true there is no vacuum, which does make things harder. However, other countries founded leagues far later than England, and had them grow into respectable institutions.


Respectable institutions is understating it a bit. The game fairly well exploded onto the scene wherever it was introduced with the exception of most current and former colonies (interestingly enough – Canada, America, Australia, India). Where it did succeed it also filled the same void that existed in England and Scotland.

Anyway, you have your say and we’ll end it there, otherwise this could go on forever.

Cheers.

Oldtimer
09-02-2009, 11:23 AM
Fine, Tobor. I think there is some validity in your claim that it is not comparable (at least to a point), and Australia is very close to our system. My point is that there is some comparability between MLS and early football, and we shouldn't compare the current state of a 100+ year old league to MLS. So lets leave it at that.

Beach_Red
09-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Automatic promotion and relegation you must mean.



I'm now completely sold on relegation-promotion over a playoff system.

With only three teams being relegated but with seven teams not making the playoffs (and more when more teams join the league) it would be a lot easier to avoid relegation than to make the playoffs, so the chances of a very successful season are a lot better. Imagine when there are 20 teams, MLSE only has to aim for 17th place to call the season a success ;).

bangersandmash
09-02-2009, 11:38 AM
One thing that gets left out of comparisons between MLS and EPL (in particular) is that the EPL exists because of TV money. The quality of just about everything -- stadia, players, pitch, ball, referee, Alex Fergueson's wine collection -- increased 100 fold once what was known as the First Division got a billion dollar injection.

As a counterpoint, Italian Football is the opposite of the Premier league -- the clubs, rather than the league negotiate TV rights. This is about to change, but it seems that the fortunes of Italian club football have gone in the opposite direction lately. It seems that the money is at the heart of it. (and this isn't a swipe at Italian football, just trying to illustrate how two different financial arrangements have had a different impact)

MLS can try to follow the EPL's example all it wants, but until ESPN or Fox ponies up a billion or so for TV rights it is never going to be able to *afford* to get everything right.

TOBOR !
09-02-2009, 11:39 AM
relegation zone battles towards the end of a season fill you with angst that you have never felt before, such that finishing 4th from bottom (albeit by goal difference) can feel like a championship season (if you're a perennial struggler - probably not if you're Spurs or Everton).