Soccer Thread 2016-17

[sovereignstar v2]

Figured it was time to start a new thread. Let's get this party started!

[The Jackal]

Will Pogba move to United for £100M or is it all just guff?

Will Arsenal sign a striker to compete with/complement Giroud?

Can Leicester remain a top four force this season with the extra commitments of the CL (and how do they manage in the CL, at that)?

Will Spurs take the next step or be exhausted after their hilarious collapse and subsequent Euro commitments?

Who wins in Rio? (I say Brazil rebounds from the Copa and takes it)

[sovereignstar v2]

Cannot see Pogba moving to anywhere other than Real.

[Critch]

Guff
No
No (but top 7-ish)
Spurs missed their chance, next season fighting for 4th/5th
Meh, Olympic football.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Who wins in Rio? (I say Brazil rebounds from the Copa and takes it)

Are you saying Brazil sent their U23 team to the Copa America? I guess that explains their misfortune there...

[miami_fan]

FULL-TIME: Celtic 0 - 1 @LincolnRedImps

[ISiddiqui]

For American soccer fans, this isn't a great article by any means, but it raises a good question:

Log In - The New York Times

There are now two separate American soccer cultures: one white, the other Latino. And while some of the Europhilia can be attributed to the relative newness of American soccer fandom (traditions, I suppose, have to start somewhere), it’s worth asking why soccer fans in a country with millions of immigrants from soccer-crazed countries in Central and South America would look so longingly toward Western Europe, or why the American media’s coverage of soccer culture, however scant, focuses on soccer bars in gentrified Brooklyn and fan organizations in majority-white cities like Portland, Ore., and Seattle.

I don't think, like the author seems to, that is entirely based on racism. That may be a bit of it, but I think it's more to do with watching English broadcasts of the Premier League. However, there is quite a substantial Latino soccer fan population that gets virtually ignored by mainstream US soccer media and by fans of MLS. That is indeed a problem that US soccer needs to deal with.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

FULL-TIME: Celtic 0 - 1 @LincolnRedImps

After this result and Iceland knocking England out the Euros, I should go put some money on the lottery. Somebody up there is granting my wishes.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For American soccer fans, this isn't a great article by any means, but it raises a good question:

Log In - The New York Times



I don't think, like the author seems to, that is entirely based on racism. That may be a bit of it, but I think it's more to do with watching English broadcasts of the Premier League. However, there is quite a substantial Latino soccer fan population that gets virtually ignored by mainstream US soccer media and by fans of MLS. That is indeed a problem that US soccer needs to deal with.

Is it as simple as language?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Is it as simple as language?

It may be for the Premier League. But we seem to now have the Bundesliga on FOX and people following La Liga... and that may be because the Premier League (in English) was a gateway drug. But maybe not.

One sometimes wonders why mainstream American soccer media focuses more on the Eredivisie than Liga MX.

[sovereignstar v2]

If there is a debate as to why Americans follow the EPL and La Liga over MX and the Brasilerio, then it's going to be a pretty damn short one. Simply put, people like to follow the best soccer and not the 2nd and 3rd best. There are enough top tier leagues I'm not sure how people could find any time to follow these lesser leagues unless they are super hardcore. Maybe not totally apples to apples, but are a lot of American basketball fans watching Euroleague basketball in their spare time?

[ISiddiqui]

Its more about how the American soccer media presents what type of soccer American soccer fans do and should embrace. MLS tends to be very Euro-heavy because there is a lack of acknowledgement of American fans of Mexican and South American decent.

It's there in your first sentence. Americans probably DO follow Liga MX over the EPL and La Liga... because of the great numbers of Hispanic Americans who follow soccer. But you wouldn't know it if you followed soccer through ESPN or SI.

(Also, FOX just spent money bringing the Bundesliga to the US - do we really think the Americans who follow EPL and La Liga because they are the best leagues in the world really care about the Bundesliga, which is definitely behind them?)

[whomario]

Except that it is not "definitely behind them" other than in the same sense you criticise: It´s a notion created and sold by the media.

I concede it´s not exactly super exciting at the top due to Bayerns dominance, but in terms of European Competition (behind La Liga but ahead of BPL in the rankings), the quality of the games and the overall product (atmosphere, stadiums f.e) it´s not objectively "definitely behind".

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It may be for the Premier League. But we seem to now have the Bundesliga on FOX and people following La Liga... and that may be because the Premier League (in English) was a gateway drug. But maybe not.

One sometimes wonders why mainstream American soccer media focuses more on the Eredivisie than Liga MX.

I think it's clearly about language. I went to the ESPN FC site and they have the big 5 leagues featured and then everything else listed alphabetically, including the Eredivisie and Liga MX. Seeing as ESPN will cover and talk about anything if it gets them page views, I'm pretty sure they aren't part of some racist conspiracy to hold down Liga MX coverage - probably far more likely that the number of people who look for Liga MX coverage in the English language is small enough it's not worth them featuring.

As for the article, I think it's quite simply garbage. I'm pretty sure I could cherry pick some examples to show the US was a more racist place in 1990 as well. I've also never heard of that song being sung at a football game in the UK and had never heard of it before reading that article, so I think it's massive stretch to suggest that's some kind of link between US and English football hooliganism. Are there minorities of England supporters that are complete idiots and racist with it - definitely, but there are also elementary school basketball games in the US in which people hold up Trump signs and chant about deportation towards teams that are majority Hispanic.

[bhlloy]

DOLA - it's also worth noting that the LA Galaxy ultras, from my experience, are overwhelmingly Hispanic. I'm not sure the writer is really making an earthshattering observation by going to a city that is very white and middle class and being shocked that white middle class fans are the ones going to the games.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

Except that it is not "definitely behind them" other than in the same sense you criticise: It´s a notion created and sold by the media.

I concede it´s not exactly super exciting at the top due to Bayerns dominance, but in terms of European Competition (behind La Liga but ahead of BPL in the rankings), the quality of the games and the overall product (atmosphere, stadiums f.e) it´s not objectively "definitely behind".

People don't necessarily rank leagues based on UEFA Coefficients. For one that only really focuses on the top teams. And yes, the dominance of one team definitely hurts in terms of deciding the quality of a league.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I think it's clearly about language. I went to the ESPN FC site and they have the big 5 leagues featured and then everything else listed alphabetically, including the Eredivisie and Liga MX. Seeing as ESPN will cover and talk about anything if it gets them page views, I'm pretty sure they aren't part of some racist conspiracy to hold down Liga MX coverage - probably far more likely that the number of people who look for Liga MX coverage in the English language is small enough it's not worth them featuring.

Not racism per se, as it is more about simply ignoring anything but the dominant culture. Which, I guess is a subtle form of racism. And it isn't really about what's on the cover of ESPN FC's site compared to what they talk about on TV, during Sportscenter or ESPN FC's television show (now granted their correspondents are generally European who have played against Dutch teams, esp when they were more successful in European competition, or are more familiar with them because of the proximity to other leagues). In addition, you have far more American soccer media than that - Men in Blazers, SBI Soccer, etc. It seems American soccer fans know about Ajax, PSV, AZ Alkmaar far more than they do Chivas, America, Leon.

And it has been a criticism for ages that MLS looks far more to Europe for inspiration (and DPs) than it does to Central and South America. And that they focus more on white millennials than on Hispanic soccer fans (even when they have so many Hispanic fans). It may partially because they buy into the two separate American soccer populations (either explicitly or implicitly).

The interesting thing was that Alexi Lalas, who was named in the article, shared it on Twitter and you had Hispanic Americans and even African Americans who said they didn't feel welcome in American supporter groups. Soccer Twitter (as it is called) got into quite an interesting discussion on it. No one said the article was good, but everyone acknowledged it brought up important questions.

[The Jackal]

American media covers the Eredivisie? Who knew. Then again I mostly just watch NBCSN for Arsenal and other EPL games. Have to prioritize my sports teams, who has time for all the other leagues.

[SirFozzie]

This is what we currently have for what leagues are shown in America. (NGSN has Dutch Rights, but they went dark late last year. They're supposed to relaunch in August, but I'll believe it when I see it).

This post comes from the TV, Satellite and Radio forum on BigSoccer (I moderate there and started the thread on who has what TV rights)

English Language Networks

Leagues
English Premier League - NBC Networks
Scottish Premier League - Fox Soccer Plus
Bundesliga - Fox Networks
Serie A - BeIN Sports
La Liga - BeIN Sports
MLS: Fox Sports and ESPN
Ligue 1 (France): BeIN Sports
English league championship: BeIN Sports
NASL: One World Sports, BeIN Sports, and WatchESPN (ESPN3)

Cup Competitions
UEFA Champions League: Fox Sports
Europa League: Fox Sports
Copa Libertadores: Fox Soccer Plus (not in English Language), Fox Sports (Semifinals and Finals, English Language)
English League cup: BeIN Sports
English FA cup: Fox Sports
Copa Del Rey: BeIN Sports (ESPN had rights to the final)
Coppa Italia: GolTV (Could change)
German DfB Pokal: Fox Sports (Fox Soccer Plus)
Coupe de France - BeIN Sports
Coupe de la Ligue (France) - BeIN Sports

Foreign Language
(Thanks to Danielmak below for this section)

FYI, almost all of these are SD except Libertadores, Sudamericana, and LigaMX/CopaMX.

Argentina: TyC International (USA): Most games are live but Boca and River are not part of this package. The only Boca or River games shown or Copa Argentina. On-screen guide on DTV is almost always off by 1 hour so my advice is to look to the on-line guide, factor your local time compared to the time in Buenos Aires, and then set your DVR to record manually.

Brazil: GolTV for English and Spanish. Sometimes as little as 2 games per week and sometimes many games per week. PFC is a Bra Portuguese option but only SD and not cheap. This is on DTV but maybe on Dish as well.

Chile: TV Chile. Two games each weekend (one on Saturday and one on Sunday, with each game repeating late at night/early in the morning)

Copa Libertadores: Fox Deportes (some games live and some delayed--all delayed games will be edited 2-10 minutes) but the addition of Fox Soccer Plus was a huge improvement with almost every game from the tournament appearing live except maybe 5-8 if memory serves me correct.

Copa Sudamericana: Fox Deportes (some games live and some delayed--all delayed games will be edited 2-10 minutes). Hopefully Fox Soccer Plus will be used for this tournament as well.

Colombia: NTEL (channel 416 on DirecTV and also on Dish but I don't know the channel)--usually 6 games each weekend with 3 on Saturday and 3 on Sunday.

Ecuador: Ecuvisa and Ecuador TV. Rights for different teams are split. These channels are very inconsistent. Sometimes games will be shown for many weeks in a row and then there will be a gap where nothing is shown for weeks. Nothing is airing now even though the league is going.

Mexico: Univision Networks, Telemundo/NBC Universo, Azteca America (which are sometimes licensed to ESPN Deportes---how this works now is not very clear since games will appear sometimes and then games won't appear). If you live in a bad weather environment, I recommend always recording via a national feed so you don't get weather maps and scrolling news about 2 inches of rain on your screen.

Peru: Peru Magico. Seems to show almost every game if not every game.

Uruguay: GolTV. Usually 2 games each week: Nacional and Penarol.

Venezuela: GolTV usually shows 2 games each week.

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras air on TVCN and Telecentro but I don't know which leagues air on which channels. Sometimes the same game is shown on both. Neither updates the on-screen guide in any consistent fashion and both are horrible with web presence (e.g., TVCN last updated their FB listing about a year ago). Good luck if you want to follow these leagues.

[SirFozzie]

That list doesn't include "Club Network Rights" (Where One World Sports will show, for example, Bayern and Arsenal games on a 3-4 day delay as part of those clubs TV network, or Liverpool games on NESN)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not racism per se, as it is more about simply ignoring anything but the dominant culture. Which, I guess is a subtle form of racism. And it isn't really about what's on the cover of ESPN FC's site compared to what they talk about on TV, during Sportscenter or ESPN FC's television show (now granted their correspondents are generally European who have played against Dutch teams, esp when they were more successful in European competition, or are more familiar with them because of the proximity to other leagues). In addition, you have far more American soccer media than that - Men in Blazers, SBI Soccer, etc. It seems American soccer fans know about Ajax, PSV, AZ Alkmaar far more than they do Chivas, America, Leon.

SirFozzie kind of hit my point. Don't Univision/Telemundo get higher or comparable ratings for national team games? Treating ESPN or Fox/NBCSN as the gatekeeper of soccer in this country is just as biased as anything you're accusing the fan base of. A lot of the demand for Mexico/SA leagues is from people who are bilingual, and thus there's a large Spanish media presence covering things. Even ESPNDeportes has a front page story on Liga MX, and I bet a very prominent place for them during the season. Look at the two other media sources you mention - Men in Blazers is heavily focused on the EPL, while SBI has always given plenty of attention to Hispanic leagues due to who runs it.

So yes, I'd agree that there are 2 parallel fanbases divided along language lines, but it's not some grand conspiracy. And it shouldn't be a surprise that KC's fan base is whiter than LA or Dallas's. Just like NE has always made an effort to reach out to the Portuguese speaking fanbase, because there's more Portuguese speaking people in this area than Spanish ones.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Don't Univision/Telemundo get higher or comparable ratings for national team games? Treating ESPN or Fox/NBCSN as the gatekeeper of soccer in this country is just as biased as anything you're accusing the fan base of.

Do you think Univision or Telemundo drive mainstream sports discussion, including soccer, nearly as much as ESPN does? That does tend to have a substantial effect on how the MLS does things - think about the LA Galaxy for a second. Their first Mexican DP was last year. Prior to that their DPs were from the Western Europe. That seems to be quite a strange focus for a franchise located in Southern California. IIRC, the league has only had 4 Mexican DPs in its history - Rafa Marquez, Blanco, Cubo Torres, and Gio dos Santos. (though interestingly, while looking for the info, I noticed there are a ton of Argentine DPs... and Atlanta United FC may have just signed another one as a Young Player DP).

Not claiming conspiracy, but rather a blind spot.

(oh, and ESPN Deportes's lead story right now is on Messi - there is a story on Club America, but it's 7 headlines down)

[Easy Mac]

It could be most Mexican players have no interest in playing here. Especially since most Mexican national team managers have spoken quite negatively about MLS.

By my math, there's been 31 European DPs, 17 US/CAN, 7 MEX, 9 Africans, 6 other CONCACAF, with the other 63 from South America.

So that's 76 of the 123 DPS that are from Latin American countries. If anything, Latin American countries are likely over-represented in MLS compared to what mainstream America would seemingly like to see.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you think Univision or Telemundo drive mainstream sports discussion, including soccer, nearly as much as ESPN does? That does tend to have a substantial effect on how the MLS does things - think about the LA Galaxy for a second. Their first Mexican DP was last year. Prior to that their DPs were from the Western Europe. That seems to be quite a strange focus for a franchise located in Southern California. IIRC, the league has only had 4 Mexican DPs in its history - Rafa Marquez, Blanco, Cubo Torres, and Gio dos Santos. (though interestingly, while looking for the info, I noticed there are a ton of Argentine DPs... and Atlanta United FC may have just signed another one as a Young Player DP).

Not claiming conspiracy, but rather a blind spot.

(oh, and ESPN Deportes's lead story right now is on Messi - there is a story on Club America, but it's 7 headlines down)

So they've won 3 of the last 5 MLS cups and we're arguing over the ethnic makeup of their roster?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

It could be most Mexican players have no interest in playing here. Especially since most Mexican national team managers have spoken quite negatively about MLS.

By my math, there's been 31 European DPs, 17 US/CAN, 7 MEX, 9 Africans, 6 other CONCACAF, with the other 63 from South America.

So that's 76 of the 123 DPS that are from Latin American countries. If anything, Latin American countries are likely over-represented in MLS compared to what mainstream America would seemingly like to see.

Yep. Liga MX is considered to have a higher quality of play and pays good players more than MLS. (Obviously MLS is extremely weird with a couple like Beckham making ridiculous $$$ compared to even the 2nd highest paid player at times.) Gio dos Santos coming was a pretty big shock due to that, akin to Michael Bradley coming back to MLS. But there's been a ton of Argentines in particular because their currency bottomed out, although Liga MX still has many more SA's playing in it than MLS because they've been willing to spend and have so much more money than the SA leagues.

ESPN or the mainstream media has over focused on the big Euro names, but they suck at covering most things , and I'm glad that after the first couple years when it really was big name mostly Euro retreads that MLS has been looking for talent where it's undervalued instead of making the dumb EPL mistakes of overpaying for known quantities. If media or Eurosnob perception lags behind, so be it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

It could be most Mexican players have no interest in playing here. Especially since most Mexican national team managers have spoken quite negatively about MLS.

By my math, there's been 31 European DPs, 17 US/CAN, 7 MEX, 9 Africans, 6 other CONCACAF, with the other 63 from South America.

So that's 76 of the 123 DPS that are from Latin American countries. If anything, Latin American countries are likely over-represented in MLS compared to what mainstream America would seemingly like to see.

Yes, there appears to be a lot of Argentine and Columbian DPs in MLS. It could be that they are cheaper as far as DPs go. Of the top 10 salaries in MLS, only one, Kaka (the top salary to boot), is not from the US or Western Europe. (Also, on a side note how does Kei Kamara only make $1,000,000 a year?!)

And the last few El Tri managers have been fine with Mexican players playing in MLS. Teams just have to pull the trigger - I know Atlanta has been trying with Guardado, but they may have lowballed him on their offer...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

ESPN or the mainstream media has over focused on the big Euro names, but they suck at covering most things , and I'm glad that after the first couple years when it really was big name mostly Euro retreads that MLS has been looking for talent where it's undervalued instead of making the dumb EPL mistakes of overpaying for known quantities. If media or Eurosnob perception lags behind, so be it.

I don't think we should necessarily be saying "so be it". Perception becomes reality all too often. We should be calling out the ESPNs, the SIs, etc of the world when they fall into the trap of going crazy on the Lampards and Gerrards who come out. Unfortunately the fawning over those signings mean they will continue (it's a way to increase attendance because all of a sudden they report it on Sportscenter as they may for a bigger American sports league).

[SirFozzie]

Well, also Chivas USA was also based in LA, and focused on central americans to a fault (So much so that they had lawsuits filed against them that English-only speakers were fired). They failed,. Miserbaly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(Also, FOX just spent money bringing the Bundesliga to the US - do we really think the Americans who follow EPL and La Liga because they are the best leagues in the world really care about the Bundesliga, which is definitely behind them?)

Wouldn't that be more likely as an attempt to get whatever rights happen to be available, in order to expand their programming.

I mean, anyone that isn't ESPN is playing catch up in terms of sports programming in general. "Whatever they can grab" often seems to be the thinking.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Well, also Chivas USA was also based in LA, and focused on central americans to a fault (So much so that they had lawsuits filed against them that English-only speakers were fired). They failed,. Miserbaly.

Chivas USA was actually fairly successful until Vergara bought out the other owners and make some strange choices and ran the team into the ground. They actually averaged over 15,000 fans a game in the late 00s, when that wasn't a bad attendance marker for the league.

[SirFozzie]

Considering Bundesliga is #2 in UEFA coefficients (moved ahead of the EPL), I don't think that the argument holds water anyway.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Chivas USA was actually fairly successful until Vergara bought out the other owners and make some strange choices and ran the team into the ground. They actually averaged over 15,000 fans a game in the late 00s, when that wasn't a bad attendance marker for the league.

Right. When Vergara decided to make Mexico and the surrounding the nations, the sole focus of Chivas USA, he tanked the team, despite the fact that they had one of the most receptive markets to that kind of tactic.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Considering Bundesliga is #2 in UEFA coefficients (moved ahead of the EPL), I don't think that the argument holds water anyway.

I feel like part of the reason this happens is that the EPL depth is generally better than the other leagues, so whilst your top teams in Spain and Germany can afford to rotate most positions when they have a mid-week CL/EL game followed by a weekend game against a lower table squad, the English teams can't be as cavalier with that kind of switching.

Admittedly I don't watch much of the other leagues so I might be underrating the mid-bottom table teams there, but it especially seems like the top few teams steamroll a lot of their opponents or are at least expected to, while EPL teams can often struggle against the 15-20 teams if they don't field their best.

In terms of the very best though, it's hard to argue that Barca/Madrid(s)/Bayern haven't been consistently better than the top EPL teams in the CL lately. Especially with the Europa league, EPL teams seem to flame out early because of the demanding schedule.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I feel like part of the reason this happens is that the EPL depth is generally better than the other leagues, so whilst your top teams in Spain and Germany can afford to rotate most positions when they have a mid-week CL/EL game followed by a weekend game against a lower table squad, the English teams can't be as cavalier with that kind of switching.

Admittedly I don't watch much of the other leagues so I might be underrating the mid-bottom table teams there, but it especially seems like the top few teams steamroll a lot of their opponents or are at least expected to, while EPL teams can often struggle against the 15-20 teams if they don't field their best.

Well and the biggest difference, of course, is you have a race for the title. The EPL has a good 4-5 teams that are in the mix (Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, & Tottenham... kind of), and last year were joined by an absolutely amazing run by a minnow, Leicester. And the gap isn't that big between the worst of the Top 5 and, say, West Ham or Southampton.

Even La Liga has Barcelona, Read Madrid, and Athletico Madrid fighting for the title.

The Bundesliga is a better Ligue 1 at this point. One dominant team and everyone else is left fighting for CL spots. That doesn't make for a particularly interesting league.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think we should necessarily be saying "so be it". Perception becomes reality all too often. We should be calling out the ESPNs, the SIs, etc of the world when they fall into the trap of going crazy on the Lampards and Gerrards who come out. Unfortunately the fawning over those signings mean they will continue (it's a way to increase attendance because all of a sudden they report it on Sportscenter as they may for a bigger American sports league).

Who actually fawns over those signings? Advertisers and ESPN appealing to the lowest common denominator. It's not people who actually watch MLS, or I assume "American soccer Twitter", though I have little idea what that is. Back when I paid more attention to BigSoccer, SBI etc there always was a large Eurosnob contingent that would claim that say, the Norwegian league, was light years ahead of MLS, and they're never going to change their hipster minds.

Plus it's not exactly like all the Europeans are over the hill or average players - Sebastian Giovinco and David Villa aren't bad, and there are under the radar players from like the Swiss league who've made a huge impact.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well and the biggest difference, of course, is you have a race for the title. The EPL has a good 4-5 teams that are in the mix (Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, & Tottenham... kind of), and last year were joined by an absolutely amazing run by a minnow, Leicester. And the gap isn't that big between the worst of the Top 5 and, say, West Ham or Southampton.

Even La Liga has Barcelona, Read Madrid, and Athletico Madrid fighting for the title.

The Bundesliga is a better Ligue 1 at this point. One dominant team and everyone else is left fighting for CL spots. That doesn't make for a particularly interesting league.

There's more to watching soccer than just a title race. Obviously it depends on the teams & matchups, but as a whole the Bundesliga has always seemed more open, faster, and with a lot less diving than the Spanish or Italian leagues. Teams like Dortmund and Wolfsburg have been some of the best teams to watch for years now, even if Bayern has been running away with the title the last couple years.

[MrBug708]

Why do kids walk out with the soccer players, holding hands? Is there some long standing tradition of this somewhere and now everybody does this?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Who actually fawns over those signings? Advertisers and ESPN appealing to the lowest common denominator. It's not people who actually watch MLS, or I assume "American soccer Twitter", though I have little idea what that is.

Of course people who watch MLS fawn over the major signings. Lampard's signing was massive news and even those who watch MLS were talking about it all the time. The Gerrard signing was as big a deal in the media and among fans as dos Santos's (the later is a far bigger deal).

And even if you want to claim that's just the 'lowest common denominator' who is being appealed to with the mainstream soccer media, who do you think leagues tend to cater to?

Plus it's not exactly like all the Europeans are over the hill or average players

Who said they were?

There's more to watching soccer than just a title race.

Of course, but a competitive title race tends to get more people interested and excited in a league (who are not living in that country at least). As the NFL realized, parity (to a point, yes) creates greater interest.

And as The Jackal alluded to, the EPL seems to have a little more parity top to bottom these days among the Big 4, mostly from the absurd amount of money coming into the league. Heck, Newcastle United, which got relegated last season, have a player who logged significant minutes for France in Euro2016 (Sissoko)

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Why do kids walk out with the soccer players, holding hands? Is there some long standing tradition of this somewhere and now everybody does this?

Let me google that for you

[MrBug708]

Doesn't answer my question. I get its a fan thing but why holding hands? Baseball has kids going out there but I don't remember hand holding but they do get an autograph. If you didnt know you could have skipped it and not wasted my time

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Doesn't answer my question. I get its a fan thing but why holding hands? Baseball has kids going out there but I don't remember hand holding but they do get an autograph. If you didnt know you could have skipped it and not wasted my time

beware the fury of the karstarks

(i have no idea as to the tradition)

[The Jackal]

Wales (11th) jumped ahead of England (13th) in the FIFA rankings, haha.

The FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking - Ranking Table - FIFA.com

USA is 25th, below Iceland (22nd)... Go Iceland!

[Critch]

Belgium still second, Colombia still third. The FIFA rankings would be laughable if it wasnt for the fact they actually use them to decide seedings.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Critch

Belgium still second, Colombia still third. The FIFA rankings would be laughable if it wasnt for the fact they actually use them to decide seedings.

Its not like Belgium missed the tournament, they still got into the Quarters.

While i agree that the ranking system could use some work, i also fail to see an alternative to ranking teams based on games played. I mean, all you can do is judge how a team has done, not how "good" it is on paper.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by whomario

Its not like Belgium missed the tournament, they still got into the Quarters.

While i agree that the ranking system could use some work, i also fail to see an alternative to ranking teams based on games played. I mean, all you can do is judge how a team has done, not how "good" it is on paper.

Wales was ranked 10th in the FIFA Rankings when they made the draw for World Cup 2018 qualifiers (that draw was before Euro 2016) and despite that the FIFA Ranking is based on actual results, nobody in the world was able to understand how their results were good enough to be ranked ahead the teams closely behind them. Half a year later, Wales actually has some results worth ranking them highly and now they rank lower than they did then...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

Its not like Belgium missed the tournament, they still got into the Quarters.

While i agree that the ranking system could use some work, i also fail to see an alternative to ranking teams based on games played. I mean, all you can do is judge how a team has done, not how "good" it is on paper.

And Colombia finished 3rd in the Copa. The champions of Copa and Euro are, yes, in 5th and 6th in the rankings, but they have definitely narrowed the gap.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Wales was ranked 10th in the FIFA Rankings when they made the draw for World Cup 2018 qualifiers (that draw was before Euro 2016) and despite that the FIFA Ranking is based on actual results, nobody in the world was able to understand how their results were good enough to be ranked ahead the teams closely behind them. Half a year later, Wales actually has some results worth ranking them highly and now they rank lower than they did then...

But that didn't occur in a vacuum, right? I mean, are you referring to the draw that Wiki describes as The draw for the UEFA zone took place on 25 July 2015 in St. Petersburg?

If so, Wales dropped to 17th by the end of 2015, and as far as 26th just prior to Euro 2016. It's not as though they went into Euro ranked 10th and then dropped.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And Colombia finished 3rd in the Copa. The champions of Copa and Euro are, yes, in 5th and 6th in the rankings, but they have definitely narrowed the gap.

They finished third this time (beating US twice and Paraguay and losing when they played anybody good. And Costa Rica.), they reached the last 8 last year (scoring 1 goal in 4 games and squeezing into the last 8 in 3rd place in their group), and they're currently 5th in South American WC qualifying. That's not 3rd in the world.

Chile on the other hand won last years Copa America, won this years Copa America, and are ahead of Colombia in the qualifiers (though not by much).

FIFA over-ranks friendly matches, because it's in FIFA's interest to encourage teams to play friendly matches and make FIFA money.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Critch

FIFA over-ranks friendly matches, because it's in FIFA's interest to encourage teams to play friendly matches and make FIFA money.

Infinitely this. As mentioned above, Wales were high because they deliberately played crappy teams in friendlies to get their ranking up (which worked a treat, and is another area in which Coleman has done a great job) but then once they qualified for the Euros, actually played some OK teams to warm up and didn't win them all (mostly without Bale and Allen/Ramsey) they dropped 15 spots. It's an absolutely insane system.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But that didn't occur in a vacuum, right? I mean, are you referring to the draw that Wiki describes as The draw for the UEFA zone took place on 25 July 2015 in St. Petersburg?

If so, Wales dropped to 17th by the end of 2015, and as far as 26th just prior to Euro 2016. It's not as though they went into Euro ranked 10th and then dropped.

Hah, that was a year ago already? Time flies! I did mean the rankings that determined the draw, which apparently was in July 2015. That was in the middle of the Euro 2016 qualifiers. Wales was coming of 10 points in 10 games in WC qualifiers, but did rank a top their Euro2016 qualifiers group with 14 points in 6 games. Okay results overall, but not quite enough to make you think they would end up group winners and eventual semifinalists in Euro2016.

In the current format, Wales managed to catch lightning in a bottle there, ranking 10th (amongst the top9 European countries outside Russia) when it mattered most and then quickly fell back to where the belonged at that point in time. But the 'damage' was already done, in essence.

Point being, they ranked 1 spot higher a year ago than they do now, immediately after they had their best series of results ever. Would the draw for the FIFA qualifiers been done now, it would actually make more sense to have Wales as one of the 9 top seeds.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Critch

FIFA over-ranks friendly matches, because it's in FIFA's interest to encourage teams to play friendly matches and make FIFA money.

How does FIFA profit from friendlies ? Honest question

[Critch]

FIFA, and all the member FAs, make money by selling TV rights and tickets (and taking huge checks off Nike that allow them to pick which players play). It's why FIFA has been on a drive to introduce more international friendly dates to the calendar over the last few years, despite a lot of clubs complaining. Not that the clubs are any less greedy than the FAs.