Uhhmm, AP, how many Beckham stories are you going to shove down our throats?

Yes, and arena football makes money too.

Just so nobody suggests that it's pushing the big three.

 

That's a flawed logic.

American football has been a wildly popular spectator sport, in the college ranks, since the 1920s. So the sport itself had already been "a rival for baseball" long before the professional league ever hit it big, in the 1960s. Fast-forward another 40 years, and you see what professional football has become today. But it's had 80 years of support to help it get to that level.

If you're trying to compare soccer in the 2000s to football in the 1960s, there is no comparison. It's a totally different ballgame, pardon the pun.

 

I'll stand on my logic and add this: Not knowing the future, but knowing the games and the tastes of Americans, would you rather buy the New York Giants in 1960 or the New York Red Bulls in 2007?
And remember, as was mentioned by another poster, there was soccer in the U.S. before 1967. To many, the greatest moment in U.S. soccer history is still the win over England in the World Cup in Brazil in the 1950s.

 

Never said there wasn't soccer before 40 years ago. I said ... football had a greater leg to stand on long before the NFL had its coming-out party in the 1960s.

The New York Giants in 1960 do not belong in the same discussion with the New York Red Bulls of 2007. The sport of football in 1960 was already very popular in mainstream America -- wildly popular at the collegiate level -- in a way that soccer has never been -- at any level. You're comparing apples to antelopes.

 

The moment the Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants in the 1958 championship game, in overtime, on national television, pro football began it's serious elevation.

 

Easy, the 1960 Giants. It was two years after the Greatest Game Ever Played and even then, you could see football taking off because of television and Pete Rozelle. Beckham/MLS are living in too fragmented of a time.

 

Clerk Typist: as someone who wanted to cover pro soccer since seeing Diego Maradona dominate the 1986 World cup, I envy and respect your experiences. And I would direct you to the soccer thread, where tales would be greatly appreciated.

Now in response:

Soccer did not go big-time 40 years ago. It still has not gone completely big time. The 1994 World Cup was a big-time event, but did a great Olympics in 1984 make track and field, swimming and diving spectator sports? The optimists would say soccer blew a chance to gain a foothold by lagging on MLS' creation until after the MLB strike of 1994-95 was long finished. But the fact is, MLS did not truly gain even a small foothold until people jumped on the bandwagon after the 2002 World Cup, sadly a year after MLS folded two teams and fled the entire state of Florida.

Now MLS has steadily grown since then, with the new stadiums and teams getting sold so Anschutz, Kraft and Hunt do not own the entire league. But soccer has still not gone "big time" in the U.S., not like other sports have. But it is as big time as it is going to get, with a league that is not going away, and the national team steadily getting better (with a much deeper player pool than ever before) and more popular among U.S. sports fans. If this is the peak, that's just fine. Because I remember when World Cup qualifiers were held at junior-college stadiums. I remember when there was no league, and I remember when guys like Lothar Matthaus and Luis Hernandez crapped all over MLS while collecting a paycheck from the league.

Maybe that's what makes Backham so huge: he had other options, and made his choice, no matter what the on-field or off-field reasons for it. I would be curious to see how committed he is to heloing soccer become popular in the one country where uber fame eludes him.

As for the 1950 win against England: history has diminished it greatly. We lost our two other games, and that England team was far from a world-beater. In addition, England has been far from a consistent world beater, with a single World Cup at home and no Euro titles since God knows when. It's not like we beat Germany, Italy, a full-strength Argentina or Brazil. Then we failed to qualify for the World Cup again until 1990, when it can be said we were helped by Mexico's ineligibility.

No, a much bigger win for our history was Colombia in 1994. There was real fear we would become the first host to fail to advance, especially after tying - and not beating - Switzerland in our first game. Colombia guaranteed advancement, and we built on that and went on to acquit ourselves well against an excellent Romania team and eventual champion Brazil, which was of course at the start of its resurgence as a superteam. We didn't build on the England win, which was ultimately a fleeting moment of glory during a decades-long soccer drought for the USA.

 

I think that MLS can be bigger than the NHL ever was, but I think the NBA, NFL and MLB are so firmly entrenched in our sports culture that it'll be impossible for MLS to crack that upper echelon. There's nothing wrong with fourth fiddle.

 

Clerk, if you think the NFL of 40 years ago (1967) was a "barnstorming league" you have no idea what you're talking about.

The NFL 50 years ago was an established league, 2nd to MLB, much ahead of the NBA on a regional basis. The 1958 Giants-Colts game... that's 49 yeras ago ... clearly established the NFL as No. 2 nationally to baseball.

 

I am not a soccer guy, but to downplay Beckham's MLS debut is borderline insane. The guy has the charisma and skill to make the league relevant in America. It won't surpass the Big Three, but with Beckham as the league's poster boy, MLS has a chance to move into the next tier of sports with the NHL, NASCAR and--like it or not--UFC.

 

spnited, I said (or meant to say) the NFL of 1920 (actually the APFA) was a barnstorming league. The Rock Island Independents, Hammond Pros, etc.

 

See, I wonder about this, though.

I wonder in what direction professional sports leagues are headed. Because from the way NFL and MLB seem to be leading the way these days, I get the feeling that pro sports will (already have?) become more niche-ified -- regardless of how "big" they are. The NFL has its own network, MLB is getting one, MLB teams' Web sites now have decent coverage, you can watch every MLB game via the Internet regardless of market, you can listen to every game on satellite radio regardless of market ... we're moving more and more toward an environment where you choose every aspect of the content that you get, and pay for only what you want.

That said, in that environment, what will it matter if MLS is a "second-tier" league in terms of MSM coverage or attendance or TV numbers? The people that want it are going to be able to find it, and they'll have the option of getting as much of it as they want. Just like MLB, just like NFL.

The only difference is the money, and the audience. But as long as MLS has the sponsors to stay afloat, and makes its product available to the fans who want it, its so-called "prestige" really won't make a difference, IMO. If you want it, it's there. If you don't want it -- it doesn't matter.

The fact is, there is room in the sports world for more than a Big Three, or Big Four, or Big 100. A thriving U.S. pro soccer league doesn't have to be ashamed of being a "niche" sport at all -- not when the biggest leagues are actively trying to create -- and have control of -- their own niche, too.