If Sacramento Had an MLS Club would you support it?
- Thread starter natedizzle
- Start date
There was a pro soccer team in Sacramento in the 70's/early 80's -- my cousin played for them for a while. The Sacramento Gold. And at that time, no, they were not supported. But times have changed, and I would think a one-sport town like Sacto might have room for an MLS team, maybe. Its not really a "major" sport in the U.S., you don't need to pack the place (where would they play?) with 70,000 people every game to be a successful franchise. Its possible.
I'd buy one of their kits (well at least the jersey) if they got a team before Portland. I moderately supported my local teams in Boston and LA when I lived in those areas and I also liked the SJ Clash until they changed their name, for purely non-soccer reasons.
I think Sac would be a good area for a team - a fair amount of ethnic diversity and less competition than most other MLS cities (I wouldn't call it one sport since MLS may be closer to the River Cats and Monarchs than the Kings in terms of drawing interest). Plus NorCal is presently without a team.
I think Sac would be a good area for a team - a fair amount of ethnic diversity and less competition than most other MLS cities (I wouldn't call it one sport since MLS may be closer to the River Cats and Monarchs than the Kings in terms of drawing interest). Plus NorCal is presently without a team.
I completely agree, and I also do not see why we would be a "hockey" town. I understand that we have a large population of Eastern Europeans, but I think most other folks would gravitate towards the Kings as opposed to the NHL team. And the NHL is terribly run. I can't see the Maloofs buying into that league at this juncture.
While MLS is not exceedingly well run, it certainly has a much better vision/plan than the NHL. MLS performs in the summer currently, so it would not compete w/ the Kings, but it will be moving to the fall/winter shortly. I understand that FIFA is not happy with tournaments like the World Cup interfering with our regular season and reducing the visibility of the league. If we had an MLS side Sacramento would be eligible for friendly exhibitions against teams like Chelsea, Manchester United, and Liverpool. That would be phenomenal!
Plus...Hockey isn't fun until playoff time. I think we tested that when the Sharks used to play exhibition games at ARCO. They were popular for a little while and then died down. I remember the attendance being pretty good for that, but I think that Sacramento would've already built a new stadium if they thought they were gonna get a hockey team, and the city would've done its part if they thought Sac could be a hockeytown.
It's true that the MLS is definitely the 4th most popular American professional sports league...however, is a city where the MLS team outsells the NHL team.
EXAMPLE: Today on PTI, Wilbon stated that Washington D.C. is more supportive of D.C. United than they are of the Washington Captials. But then again...if Sacramento had a soccer team with multiple championships and Freddy Adu, I'd support them over a sorry hockey team any day with or without Ovechkin!
I find International Soccer and European Club Soccer MUCH more enjoyable than MLS. I have actually tried to watch entire MLS games but grew bored because I had no rooting interest and the skill level is much poorer that I am used to, as many of the good American player play in Europe. Maybe if they allowed more international players it would be more interesting.
MLS play is not of the quality of Euro leagues or Internationals, but it has improved. The biggest problem is that they're content to get international has beens and allow the top US talent to go overseas so its always going to be a second or third tier league. Adu is as good as gone after this season and until recently he didn't get near enough action with the United. Now most Americans won't see him for another 10 years except in the WCs. If you don't have a team nearby there's just no reason to follow MLS as the tv coverage is pretty lousy and you can't get the game atmosphere as you would attending in person.
However the league has survived 10 years and after contracting a bit is expanding again and being more football friendly to real fans - bringing the rules back in check with the rest of the world, abandoning dopey team names, tapping latin and other immigrant markets. They're also slowly breaking up the centralized ownership (although that has lead to the unfortunate NY Red Bulls). Hopefully they can kick it up another notch in the next 5 years, I know nothing would please FIFA more because they stand to make billions off America if the sport takes off.
However the league has survived 10 years and after contracting a bit is expanding again and being more football friendly to real fans - bringing the rules back in check with the rest of the world, abandoning dopey team names, tapping latin and other immigrant markets. They're also slowly breaking up the centralized ownership (although that has lead to the unfortunate NY Red Bulls). Hopefully they can kick it up another notch in the next 5 years, I know nothing would please FIFA more because they stand to make billions off America if the sport takes off.
I was in South America for 2 years from 2003 to 2005, and I remember talking to some people down there that really know their stuf about soccer, and in their opinion, they hoped that soccer never got big in the United States.
The reason: because we dominate in almost every other sport in the world. I was in Chile, and those people celebrated their first Golm Medal ever when Nicolas Massu won the tennis gold, while like always, we smacked people around in Athens with 40+ golds. THe reason is of course because we in the U.S. put more emphasis on sports than anyone else in the world, and we spend more money to train our athletes to become the best.
One of the coaches of a minor league soccer team down there told me that if the U.S. were to really make a serious commitment to support and groom soccer talent in the U.S., then they'd become a power like Brazil because of before-mentioned facitilities the U.S. has to train world-class athletes.
It's unfortunate we got put in the group of death in this year's World Cup because we aren't ready for that kind of hype and expectation. We're still trying to find an identity, and hopefully 2010 in South Africa will yield a better result.
The reason: because we dominate in almost every other sport in the world. I was in Chile, and those people celebrated their first Golm Medal ever when Nicolas Massu won the tennis gold, while like always, we smacked people around in Athens with 40+ golds. THe reason is of course because we in the U.S. put more emphasis on sports than anyone else in the world, and we spend more money to train our athletes to become the best.
One of the coaches of a minor league soccer team down there told me that if the U.S. were to really make a serious commitment to support and groom soccer talent in the U.S., then they'd become a power like Brazil because of before-mentioned facitilities the U.S. has to train world-class athletes.
It's unfortunate we got put in the group of death in this year's World Cup because we aren't ready for that kind of hype and expectation. We're still trying to find an identity, and hopefully 2010 in South Africa will yield a better result.
