Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Don Garber hits the right notes, mostly
by Paul Gardner, November 16th, 2010 11:12PM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner

TAGS:  mls


By Paul Gardner

On Tuesday, MLS Commissioner Don Garber gave us a 24-minute State of the League address -- sort of a pep talk, really, because almost everything he had to say was either positive, or was positively interpreted.

He’s been around now 11 years, has Garber, and he speaks well, and sounds comfortable, dealing with every aspect of the league’s many facets. Well, to be truthful, every aspect except one -- more about that exception shortly.

The summary that Garber gave us of the past year covered a series of solid, if not spectacular achievements. No doubt he and the rest of the MLS gray suits prefer it that way. Sudden, explosive triumphs tend to be short-lived, they burn out quickly, leaving doubt and suspicion behind them; better off with the slow steady tread of a more measured advance.

So MLS will go on expanding, just one or two teams at a time. But Garber let us know that plenty of cities are interested in joining the league, so we know that slow progress is not to be seen as a struggle, but rather as something marking his and the league’s confident control of its future.

And of course, there was continuing good news on the sponsor front -- MLS always seems to be doing well in that area -- with a 15 percent increase in, er, was it income? Or the number of sponsors? Can’t remember, but a 15 percent increase is undoubtedly good news whichever it is.

I liked what Garber had to say about the league structure. He left things open as to whether MLS would switch to a single-standings league (instead of the two-conference alignment), but made it very clear that the playoffs are here to stay, with a doubly emphasized “we will never do away with playoffs ... we will always have playoffs.”

I like that because I like the playoffs, and I like it because it is a rebuff to the tedious Eurosnobs who want only to replicate what “they do in Europe,” reducing the USA and MLS to a sort of Premier League West.

On player development, Garber presented a somewhat less than coherent series of initiatives designed to encourage the entry of young American-trained players into MLS. While it’s not too difficult to pick fault with all of these measures, the overall aim of them is not to be denied, nor, I think, can there be any doubt about desire of the MLS owners to see a steady crop of talented young stars entering the league.

No doubt, a goodly part of that desire has an economic base, as homegrown players are likely to be cheaper. I don’t think that motivation really matters -- and any way, it may well be incorrect. What matters is to set up a nationwide scheme (I’m deliberately avoiding the word “program” with its implication of heavy organization) that will provide opportunities for boys to develop their skills, and to make MLS an attractive future employer.

Very noticeable was the fact that Garber either forgot or deliberately omitted any mention of the colleges on this topic. Has it finally sunk in that any serious scheme to develop pro players will not come from the colleges? This looks like further evidence that Garber and MLS realize that they themselves will have to take care of player development. Which is thoroughly realistic.

All this translates into a revived, and presumably improved, reserve league, to expanding roster size, to removing the current restrictions on the number of “homegrown” players a club can sign in each season.

Garber also talked of helping the Federation to improve the quality of officiating. I happen to believe that, on the whole, the refereeing is quite good in MLS. I wouldn’t rule out improvements (sadly, the refs waited for the playoffs to pull off two of their worst decisions of the season) but what on earth can Garber mean when he talks of providing referees with “more technology”? Let’s just hope that he’s not talking about the famous GLT that so incenses Sepp Blatter (and yes, you are supposed to know what GLT means!).

Then there were continued assurances that MLS is actively pursuing the idea of placing a second team in the New York area -- which would certainly be the most exciting version of expansion that I can think of.

The weakest part of Garber’s talk -- maybe the only weak part -- came whenever he felt it necessary to talk about the game itself. Garber is not, in any way, a soccer expert -- he does not claim to be one -- but on occasions like this he’s more or less obliged to pretend that he is. To hear him discuss the relative merits of Dallas and Colorado is to wish he would change the subject -- quickly.

This is a serious weakness. The game as played on the field -- the soccer itself -- is, after all, the core of all this sponsor and fan and coaching and stadium-building and player-development activity.

It is a tricky subject, but one that MLS urgently needs to get right. As a new league, introducing a new pro sport into a pretty crammed market, MLS needs to present the most attractive “product” possible. Not just for ornamental reasons, but for selling-seat, getting-TV-ratings and attracting-sponsor reasons. For business reasons.

We’re looking into it, was Garber’s response. It seems that MLS has hired a European company to analyze its games -- presumably with the idea of working out what can be done to improve its excitement value. Garber talked of incentives for goalscoring and for wins -- “We've come up with a number of things that hopefully over time can incentivize attacking soccer” -- which sounds great, but may be missing the point.

There is attacking soccer ... and there is attacking soccer. Simply thumping long balls forward is attacking soccer. It might score highly on whatever stats the experts come up with. But it is not attractive, and usually not particularly effective. Missing are those magical ingredients of skill and artistry. The touches that will never show up in the stats.

  1. Gus Keri
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 10:39 a.m.
    The new NCAA rule should resolve a major concern regarding the developement of soccer talents. Now that players don't lose their college elegibility if they play with the pros, providing they don't get paid, Pro teams (MLS, NASL and USL) can invite top college talents to their practices and games and help improve their skills and technical awareness. This will re-shape the landscape of soccer in this country. I see a great future, not only for professional soccer, but also for college soccer which stands to benefit the most from this rule.
  1. Joe Hosack
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.
    Attractive soccer in the semifinal playoff games? Whats the problem? Those two games were as ugly as the World cup final (each for different reasons). Trying to keep the Eurosnobs happy?
  1. Ted Westervelt
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 1:39 p.m.
    There'd be no push for parity if it didn't save money for owners. Perhaps teams on which mediocrity is imposed don't draw as much interest? Maybe we should stop trying to save MLS speculators money, and adopt that promotion, relegation and independent club scheme - the one that forces owners to concentrate on quality? Maybe allowing them to confederate in a shared risk single entity takes that prerogative away? Just wondering....
  1. Ted Westervelt
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.
    Gus - You have to love that new rule about college players. No better way to save MLS owners $ than by requiring them not to pay players. Sick stuff.
  1. Loren C. Klein
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.
    Actually, I thought the best part was in response to Gardner's three-year long question, Garber stonewalled him. Made my day.
  1. Glenn Mcwilliams
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
    GLT? Garber Loves Talking? Gardner's Lost Touch? JK. We all know what GLT means. And, yes you are supposed to know what JK means. Paul - More than once you have pined in your column for more attractive, attacking soccer. I am with you on this - big time! Do you have any ideas on how we can help make this happen? Is it up to the academy level coaching? Should the youth clubs and coaches be doing something different? Can the Soccer Moms and Dads do something? How are we going to get there? Certainly you are not suggesting that all players have equal ability to play either "good" soccer OR "hard" soccer, but choose to play hard instead? Clearly, we need to teach players the difference. How will we do it?
  1. Gus Keri
    commented on: November 17, 2010 at 5:25 p.m.
    Ted..I don't think it will benefit the MLS owners much but it definately will benefit the college soccer players. Some of them might even decide to leave college early and join MLS on a full basis. College soccer will benefit from improving quality as a result of playing in a professional atmosphere.
  1. I w Nowozeniuk
    commented on: November 18, 2010 at 7:40 p.m.
    I agree with Gus. College players need to get more exposure with pro-teams. They need to experience quality training. Problem is that the pro-traing in the MLS may not really do the trick. Too many players can't read the game, don't move off the ball and panic on the ball. This is the real crisis facing U.S. soccer
  1. Brian Herbert
    commented on: November 20, 2010 at 10:50 p.m.
    I'm a little late chiming in on this one, but NO FRANCHISE IN ATLANTA, an absolute hotbed of youth soccer in this country, while tiny (in comparison) markets like Vancouver, Portland, and Montreal receive them? I guess he figures go for cities who either do not have, or have poor franchises in the "major" sports. Maybe its good for his business, but it's not good for getting all our young talent here in GA hooked on the domestic league!

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
Chuck Blazer 1945-2017: The Fatally Flawed Friend     
The tragedy that was Chuck Blazer is now over. And tragedy it assuredly was, a good ...
New medical study shows FIFA protocol is being ignored    
To laugh ... or to cry? There is no middle course here, no way of dodging ...
The Gnat's Eyebrow and other VAR stupidities     
The trial of video-assistance for referees currently under way at the Confederations Cup in Russia cannot ...
That Goal    
It was Pele who started the "soccer is beauty" theme. He titled his autobiography -- one ...
Tab Ramos paints a rosy American future in the changing U-20 World Cup -- but a U-18 World Cup would make more sense     
Tab Ramos has been talking in glowing terms of his team and its adventures at the ...
What's this? A goalkeeper penalized for rough play?     
Meet Sorin Stoica. Maybe you've seen him in action during MLS games. Not a highly paid ...
Scots wha hae! Thoughts on the sad and ominous decline of Scottish soccer    
I note, with considerable exasperation tempered by sadness, that Scottish soccer is experimenting with a marvelous ...
Celebrity coaches -- who needs them?     
I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the extraordinary way in which ...
Wenger must stay -- even the stats agree     
Arsene Wenger should stay. That's what I think. And I think that way because I respect ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 2): FIFA must radically rethink the goalkeeper's role    
Last time, I asked: "What action has soccer taken to at least reduce the incidence of ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives