PDA

View Full Version : Major League Soccer vs English Premier League



__wowza
10-30-2009, 10:42 AM
Had a conversation with a buddy the other day about the premiership, it got particularly interesting when we started discussing the relationship between the EPL and MLS.

If you follow footie at all, you know that the premier league is dominated by the top three teams (ManU, Chelsa & Arsenal or Liverpool depending on the year) which are all horribly in debt. Now, our seasons don't exactly overlap all of the time, but I find there to be a lot of unfair comparisons from people who want to contrast the MLS with the EPL in terms of style of play, excitement, professionalism, etc. To me, these are horribly unfair parallels to draw as most of the teams have been around for upwards of 20 years longer than any top tier north american team. That, coupled with the fact that their top championship teams are 40 - 60% in debt allows them to handle their footie culture a bit better than we've discovered over here. All of these added together gives you two types of fans, the diehards who support their teams through thick and thin, and find little victories (Totten anyone?); be it their club coming in 5th, holding out for a draw against Arsenal or even just avoiding regulation. The other type of fan is someone who simply throws on a scarf and watches for the spectacle without any second thought towards the culture attempting to be built in North America. It's a shite state of affairs believe me.

I don't really know where I'm going with this article. Just wanted to open up a dialogue, I've heard a few comments about the level of play here compaired to other leagues, but EPL is tossed around a lot. Thoughts?

MUFC_Niagara
10-30-2009, 10:46 AM
Not sure what you are asking for here? Anyway, I think you need to throw City in ther as well, even before the poo.

Parkdale
10-30-2009, 10:47 AM
To me, these are horribly unfair parallels to draw....

because there is really no comparison. You might as well be comparing the Russian hockey league to the NHL, or the Japanese Baseball league to MLB. There's no just real comparison, so why even bother looking for one?

Oldtimer
10-30-2009, 10:49 AM
I think we should ignore the EPL when making comparisons. I'd just say that MLS is not the EPL. End point.

The Bundesliga has the closest history to our own (football started as a second-tier sport, league originally had very complex roster and salary rules), MLS already has a working agreement with the Bundesliga, and it has the same issues with young prospects going to hotter leagues.

Parkdale
10-30-2009, 10:52 AM
The Bundesliga has the closest history to our own (football started as a second-tier sport, league originally had very complex roster and salary rules)

what was the primary sport (sports) other than football?

Fort York Redcoat
10-30-2009, 10:52 AM
It's two leagues playing the same sport in different ways because they 're in different parts of the world and been played for a different amount of time.

__wowza
10-30-2009, 10:53 AM
because there is really no comparison. You might as well be comparing the Russian hockey league to the NHL, or the Japanese Baseball league to MLB. There's no just real comparison, so why even bother looking for one?

I hear comparisons about the level of play in the MLS all the time though, my gripe is that it's being compared with Serie A or the EPL, and it's those comparisons that's turning a lot of people off or making unfair demands from the league. I'm not trying to look for comparisons, i'm just wondering if everyone thinks that interest in a league like the EPL is hurting MLS expansion.

Oldtimer
10-30-2009, 10:54 AM
what was the primary sport (sports) other than football?

Gymnastics was really big until recently. Wayyy bigger than football.

The biggest problem is that not too many are familiar with the Bundesliga (although if you've added GOL TV, you now have a chance to learn).

trane
10-30-2009, 11:05 AM
Had a conversation with a buddy the other day about the premiership, it got particularly interesting when we started discussing the relationship between the EPL and MLS.

If you follow footie at all, you know that the premier league is dominated by the top three teams (ManU, Chelsa & Arsenal or Liverpool depending on the year) which are all horribly in debt. Now, our seasons don't exactly overlap all of the time, but I find there to be a lot of unfair comparisons from people who want to contrast the MLS with the EPL in terms of style of play, excitement, professionalism, etc. To me, these are horribly unfair parallels to draw as most of the teams have been around for upwards of 20 years longer than any top tier north american team. That, coupled with the fact that their top championship teams are 40 - 60% in debt allows them to handle their footie culture a bit better than we've discovered over here. All of these added together gives you two types of fans, the diehards who support their teams through thick and thin, and find little victories (Totten anyone?); be it their club coming in 5th, holding out for a draw against Arsenal or even just avoiding regulation. The other type of fan is someone who simply throws on a scarf and watches for the spectacle without any second thought towards the culture attempting to be built in North America. It's a shite state of affairs believe me.

I don't really know where I'm going with this article. Just wanted to open up a dialogue, I've heard a few comments about the level of play here compaired to other leagues, but EPL is tossed around a lot. Thoughts?

20 years longer? Most teams Milan, Everton, LFC, Inter, Juve, Man U, Chelsea, ect., ect., most other big clubs were started in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Parkdale
10-30-2009, 11:07 AM
I hear comparisons about the level of play in the MLS all the time though....

and there's no point in making those comparisons.

agreed that people DO make those comparisons, but they shouldnt.

and we've all heard stupid things at BMO, like the time Vitti shot wide and some idiot says 'Messi would have made that'. No shit! The real issue is that right now, we have the world's best playing in our living rooms and recorded on the tivo for later. Maybe people used to have more honest expectations, and they knew that the quality of their local club wasn't going to stand up to the best clubs in the world. Why do people expect that now?

Beach_Red
10-30-2009, 11:18 AM
There's some interesting stuff in terms of going forward. The European leagues have so much tradition, which is great, but MLS is structured for the current world.

I know people hate it, but the rwal comparison is the EPL and the NFL. Those were the models a new league had to chose from. In the NFL a couple of teams (Jacksonville and Buffalo maybe) aren't doing as well as they were, but they aren't in debt and any one of the 32 teams has as good a chance of winning the Super Bowl as any other (except Detroit, of course ;)).

For any new league starting up, that's the model they're going to follow.

The one thing MLS did wrong in modelling itself on the NFL (and it's not really their fault) is that they've allowed corporate ownership. If MLS had the choice, they probably wouldn't have.

Rudi
10-30-2009, 11:18 AM
20 years longer? Most teams Milan, Everton, LFC, Inter, Juve, Man U, Chelsea, ect., ect., most other big clubs were started in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
The Yankees, Red Sox, Canadiens, etc were started around 1900. The Argos in 1873.

There aren't as many teams that as old as the ones you mentioned, but some of the bigger names in NA pro sports have been around nearly as long.

__wowza
10-30-2009, 11:20 AM
20 years longer? Most teams Milan, Everton, LFC, Inter, Juve, Man U, Chelsea, ect., ect., most other big clubs were started in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

upwards of 20 years, ie: the newer clubs have been around for 20 years longer than their north american counterparts.

trane
10-30-2009, 11:22 AM
The Yankees, Red Sox, Canadiens, etc were started around 1900. The Argos in 1873.

There aren't as many teams that as old as the ones you mentioned, but some of the bigger names in NA pro sports have been around nearly as long.

I know, it is just that he seems to be misinformed about the history of football in Europe.

My comment it takes time to build a sport up. More then 20 years. Which is not realy an anti MLS comment just an observation.

trane
10-30-2009, 11:23 AM
upwards of 20 years, ie: the newer clubs have been around for 20 years longer than their north american counterparts.


I would have to look but I suspect that most clubs in the EPL are of similar age as the one I have mentioned. Again it is not an anti MLS comment. Just an observation.

Parkdale
10-30-2009, 11:28 AM
The Yankees, Red Sox, Canadiens, etc were started around 1900. The Argos in 1873.

just to use the hockey example...

when it was just the 'original six', those 6 teams were the ONLY teams for 25 years (from the 40's to '67). During the same timeframe, there were 90+ clubs in 'The Football League' in England. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_League#Post-World_War_II) Yes there are old teams in North America, but it wasn't nearly as entrenched in the culture as Football was in England (and the rest of Europe too).

the only sport in North America that has teams that old, and a league that was active enough to support more than a handful of clubs is baseball.

trane
10-30-2009, 11:32 AM
^ Baseball had a lot of smaller clubs and leagues which have since died. But many of the older clubs, Dodgers, White Sox, Cubs, Red Sox, Cardinalls, and others are of similar age as European footy clubs.

Beach_Red
10-30-2009, 11:35 AM
the only sport in North America that has teams that old, and a league that was active enough to support more than a handful of clubs is baseball.

Yes. But the divide in North America was amateur/professional. Baseball was the first professional sport but football was big on campus for almost as long. It took pro football a long time to develop, or to lose its image as a kind of secondary sport. The highest achievement for a football player for the first half of the twentieth century was the Rose Bowl - or whatever college championship they played for. It's why it was common for the Heisman trophy winner not to turn pro.

So the NFL is really a modern league, even though football is as old (almost) as baseball. Sure, the Bears, Packers and a few others have been around a long time but the structure of the current league really only dates to the merger of the old NFL and the AFL.

trane
10-30-2009, 11:37 AM
^ I saw that movie; "Letherheads".