by W.H.

The answer to the above question has nothing to do with the two words: David Beckham, although the well attired English star has brought American soccer to a revelation. Apparently one player can not make the U.S. game better, or even one team better. In his two seasons in LA, his team finished 11^th and 13^th overall. Grounds for dismissal if we had a proper relegation system in America.  And so the real issue here is whether the MLS can attract better players and more fans if it's not putting its best product on the field.  The reason American Club Soccer will continue to be a lesser game has to do with two words: promotion/relegation.

In America we pride ourselves on capitalism.  However our sports leagues, including MLS, use varying degrees of socialism to maintain an equal balance among franchises. There's billions of dollars in profit to be had in American professional sports and there's no immediate consequences for intentionally putting a poor quality team on the field. Until this current financial crisis, organizations like the Detroit Lions, The Kansas City Royals, and The Los Angeles Clippers could turn a profit while routinely being the worst teams in their respective leagues. In fact, some awful franchises gained money from revenue sharing with larger clubs that was never used to improve their ball clubs. What motivation would an owner have to funnel his profits into a club that can't win a championship?  In America, none.  And it's the fans that suffer the greatest cost.

Imagine if the Royals didn't get to compete in Major League Baseball the next season if they were the worst overall team. Wouldn't that make the final games of the season relevant for the fans?  Don't you think ticket sales would increase at the end of the season for decisive relegation games?  Every game would mean something because it's a season long version of musical chairs.  And if your team steals a seat at the end, you actually thank God that your team shelled out the dough for players like Jose Guillen and Gil Meche.

The MLS could be the innovator in American professional sports, but they've chosen to protect their owners instead of the integrity of their league.  Virtually every other country around the world uses a promotion/relegation system to keep competition elite in the top league.  How would anyone go about determining if there's better soccer in the MLS's minor leagues?   The benchmarks for league soccer worldwide are determined through international and domestic tournaments. These tournaments, which are held in addition to the regular seasons, measure teams against the top opponents from other nations leagues and their own domestic lower leagues.

By judging the American response for the WBC one could draw the conclusion that international team sport competition is unpopular in the United States.  However, in-season international cups are standard in soccer.  The MLS sends it's top 4 U.S. teams to participate in the CONCACAF Champion's League against the top Mexican, Central American, and Caribbean clubs.  American teams from the lower-tiered USL are ineligible, unless one happened to win the US Open Cup, but 2 USL teams representing Canada (Montreal Impact) and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico Islanders) qualified for the field of 32.  When the Champion's League reached it's final 8, both USL teams were still standing, along with only 1 or the 4 MLS franchises.  The semifinals featured 1 USL team and 0 MLS teams.

Domestically, the US Open Cup incorporates clubs from the top five levels of American soccer.  For non-soccer fans, imagine if Major League Baseball took 5 days off a month to hold a tournament between all levels of the sport: Rookie, A, AA, AAA, MLB.  Every Open Cup since 1996 has been won by an MLS team except one.  But routinely lower tier teams (minor leagues more or less) from the USL make the final four or championship game of the tournament.  And despite knocking out the best MLS teams along the way, the USL teams' gain no reward for continued success.  Nothing, except the possibility of gutting their organization and continuing as an expansion franchise with all new players, like the Seattle Sounders will do this season.

Seattle, Puerto Rico, and Montreal have won USL titles in the last three years. With a proper promotion/relegation system in place they'd be in the MLS, without gutting their roster, and their success could add accreditation to America's top league.   But the MLS is protecting its owners and in doing so reducing the quality of its product.  This isn't an indictment of financial equality in sports, it's a reexamination of how we handle competition in a country who's businessmen, when they're not looking for government bailouts, supposedly pride themselves on survival of the fittest. Why are MLS owners courageous entrepreneurs while risking capital to purchase a franchise, and cowards when it comes to fielding the best product?   Are they afraid the invisible hand or their own bottom line will drive their club to the bottom of the table?

wh@sportymcbloggin.com