Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Membership timeline

Do we really need a membership timeline? Seems to me the information is already displayed up in the team chart immediately above the timeline making the timeline redundant. That and as time goes on the timeline will become unwieldy as the league adds teams and years pass. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The timeline seems like a good visualization of some of the data contained in the chart immediately above, but it shows more than is contained in the chart. The chart doesn't have entries for Miami, Tampa Bay, or the first iteration of San Jose. For those you have to go to the footnotes and the prose above the table. The timeline brings all that data together. The maintenance issue is a non-issue in my opinion because I had never seen the timeline tool User:RHMI used, but I was able to find the documentation for how to use it pretty quickly and made some adjustments without too much effort. The thing I don't like about the tool is that the images it produces are not high quality. The fonts have some pretty poor antialiasing which makes the whole thing look grainy. To address this I tried an experiment here that I think looks better and User:Gateman1997 may even find it more maintainable. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly though, we could probably very simply add in Tampa and Miami to the chart which solves the only real outstanding issue. As for San Jose's "first iteration", there actually is no distinction made by MLS between San Jose before and after the 2 year hiatus. They're the same team. The only real benefit the timeline gives from my perspective is to give the data a visual element that really isn't needed. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to speak against the timeline as redundant and unnecessary. All of the information included in the timeline is included in the team table. And it somehow just seems out of place – it doesn't really fit into the article.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a fan of the timeline but I can live with it if people are that passionate about it. For some reason it just feels awkward and out of place despite the useful information it reveals. I think it'd work better if a History of Major League Soccer page or something similar existed (like an expanded, more in depth version of this page's history section). Maybe if it was placed in an article similar to the National Football League franchise moves and mergers page but concerning MLS. In its current position, it just feels like an overkill of information. --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus that the timeline is better served in a sub article if it must be kept at all since it does seem to be redundant? Gateman1997 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with removing it. It was a neat idea, but it's a semi-low quality image and it's redundant with the data and prose above. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver expansion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the name for Vancouver has thus far not been revealed, yes? The team table should not have the Whitecaps name listed? Or did I miss something? WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually in announcing the team, the owners of the Vancouver MLS squad has said the team would be called the Whitecaps99.140.240.146 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)BigBoi29 BigBoi29

Additional League Template

Thoughts? Thought it would be good to have a style similar to other North American leagues. However, this doesn't mean I want to do away with the current football-standard template. {{Premier League teamlist}} {{USL-1}} As you can see, the leagues' primary templates are used almost exclusively as an overview of league clubs and nothing else.

It is only in these North American league templates do we get the additional surrounding information such as All-star games, player rosters, championship game links, stadiums, and other extras. In addition to using the new North American style template, what if the current MLS football template strictly listed league clubs and still kept around for inclusion in other soccer-specific Wikipedia articles? Thoughts? Takers? --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can't make the main title bar of the new template orange as that is the primary color of the Western Conference. I figured it was a small compromise in getting the right look. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the new one you've created Blackbox77. It emphasizes the teams and conferences a lot more I think which is good. Great work! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Further talk is being taken up at WikiProject Football: United States and Canada task force Talk Page. I'd recommend a fuller discussion there. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Coaches' Nationalities

I recently tried displaying the nationalities of the coaches in the league but it was soon undone. Any particular reason for this? I think it's important to display this as it shows how multinational the league is becoming and how more foreigners are being drawn in. Any explanation, thanks. Spartan008 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MLS Map

The State of Missouri is colored-in for the Kansas City Wizards, when instead, the state of Kansas should be colored-in. The Wizards are Head-quartered in Leawood, Kansas. They practice in Overland Park, Kansas. They currently play in Kansas City, KS, with plans to build a new stadium in Kansas City, KS. The Wizards, are by all accounts, a Kansas team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.119.216 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that both States shoud be colored-in; I bet that for marketing porpuses the Wizards would love both states to consdered them their home team. Plus look at NY, They do not play in the state of NY they paly in NJ. They should be the New Jersey Red Bulls, like the Giants and the Jets.--Ceezmad (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FA reviews

As an FYI to those watching MLS pages (and as an invite to comment in the reviews) both Qwest Field and Seattle Sounders FC are undergoing a feature article review currently. I wanted to drop a note here inviting anyone to comment on the articles or contribute to the reviews. Here are direct links to the active review pages:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle Sounders FC/archive1

Both articles have seen excellent improvement since the reviews began, but more can still be done I'm sure. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Qwest field is soccer specific

I notice that Qwest field has a footnote saying that it is not a soccer specific stadium. I think I've seen enough information to believe that that is indeed not true. SoundersFC.com has a good video detailing how soccer specific the stadium and pitch really is here. Furthermore, articles such as this one from the time when the stadium was first built, make it clear that voters demanded that this stadium not be "football specific" but rather that it be designed and built with both football and soccer in mind. Given this information, I propose the removal of the footnote on Qwest field that I believe is inaccurate. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some digging, and it appears that this misinformation was introduced with this edit. I propose that both the footnote be removed and the prose be adjusted here and in the MLS stadiums page as well. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact the stadium was built with "both football and soccer in mind" immediately disqualifies Qwest as a soccer specific stadium. Soccer specific stadiums are by definition designed to host soccer primarily, not two sports. Now some of the SSS's host more than just soccer, but their primary design considerations were all toward soccer such as capacity, pitch not being crowned, etc... The size of Qwest disqualifies it as a soccer specific stadium by the US definition as it's 60,000+ capacity is almost double any soccer specific stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this assessment. While it may well be true that it was designed to host both, it is in fact a football stadium. Gillette Stadium was also designed to host both football and soccer, but it is primarily a football stadium. Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Philadelphia Eagles, was also designed to accommodate soccer, and RFK Stadium is really a football field that is used only for a soccer team. But no argument can be made that any of these facilities are soccer-specific.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gateman1997, did you look at the article and video I pointed at? The video in particular discusses the pitch crown and how they've kept it down to 6 inches which is a low as you can go without affecting drainage. What I'm trying to explain is that Qwest field was designed from the beginning for soccer. They've been very public about the fact that no concessions have been made in favor of football over soccer. The seating area has been squared off, for example, to allow for the full soccer sideline. Normally football specific stadiums have rounded seating that results in a very narrow sideline around the corners. This is not the case in Qwest field. I'll find some more articles to help illustrate this later today.

Just to clarify, RFK Stadium was NOT built for football. It was originally built for baseball. KitHutch (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

6 inch crown is still a crown. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The point about capacity somehow disqualifying it I really don't get at all. Since when does a soccer specific stadium have to have limited seating? I didn't know that was part of the definition. In fact I think Toronto FC for example is wishing right now that they weren't so limited with their seating.

I guess what would really help here is for someone to provide a pointer to the definition of what constitutes a soccer specific stadium. Right now it seems like it's based on editors opinions which borders on original research. I'm suggesting that I believe that Qwest Field meets the definition of a soccer specific stadium (assuming there is such a definition available). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a definition does exist. I suggest you visit Soccer-specific stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The SSS article is completely unsourced, so it would need to be better referenced before it could be called an authoritative source on what is and is not a SSS. That being said, if we are to take the SSS article as an authoritative source, the primary criteria in regards to seating capacity is the "intimacy" of the stadium, not the actual number of people that will fit in the stadium. I'm a little biased here (season ticket holder for the Sounders), but with the upper bowl tarped off, Qwest is still a rather intimate locale. You don't even notice the missing upper deck and, as any visiting team can attest, it is still acoustically sound enough to make the half-capacity crowd one of the loudest in the league. I'm still looking into this question as I'm not convinced that Qwest is a SSS because it is designed as a Football and Soccer stadium from the beginning and when initially designed it was not intended that soccer would be played on turf, but rather that real grass would be brought in, which would have eliminated the crown. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources that identify Qwest as a "soccer specific stadium". Matter of fact, all of them, including the ones from the P-I and Times around the time of Seattle getting the expansion generally include the words "despite not having plans for a soccer-specific stadium". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are sources back when Qwest was being dreamed up and designed that specifically say that the stadium was designed as a soccer stadium as well as an (American) football stadium. An example is this article from 1997 discussing the design of the proposed stadium which says, in part, "Mendoza and other soccer enthusiasts have been working for years to build a soccer stadium big enough to handle local, national, and international events... we suggested that, if it was done from the beginning, we could design a stadium that could accommodate football and soccer..." (boldfacing added for emphasis on quote)

Also, this quote from the Seattle Times in 2008 is an example... "A critical responsibility was the final approval of the stadium design. Making sure that the new stadium would be a world-class venue for soccer, as well as football, was a top priority of mine. So we took the stadium plans to one of the 1994 World Cup architects and his recommended design changes were incorporated in the stadium by the Seahawks' owners. The soccer pitch required international dimensions, the crown of the playing field had to be reduced and the sightlines needed to be unobstructed, among other things. We were delivering on the promise." See Times editorial Mendoza was an advocate for a world-class soccer stadium in Seattle prior to Qwest being built (first reference) and plainly the stadium was designed with soccer in mind (second reference). He was (and I think still is) a member of the Board for the public agency that directed the design, construction, and continues to oversee the operation of Qwest.

While it is not a traditional "soccer-specific stadium" in the sense of it being smaller than a typical American football stadium and designed primarily for soccer, the reality is that it definitely was designed as a soccer stadium as well as a football stadium.

This is different than a typical American football stadium that's also used for soccer. The crucial difference, in my mind, is the consideration by the original designers of the requirements and practicalities of each sport when designing the stadium. I would argue for a more inclusive definition of "soccer-specific stadium" (which is as made-up a term as any).

While Qwest (or any subsequent stadium like it, such as the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium) might not be a "traditional" soccer-specific stadium, it is certainly worth including in a discussion of soccer-specific stadia since it was designed from the beginning to be a soccer stadium as well as a stadium for other uses.Enumclaw (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gateman1997: "6 inch crown is still a crown." Indeed it is. However, I did some research and found this which indicates that a 6 inch crown is the minimum recommended crown for a soccer field even on a natural surface. I'm sure you already knew that since you were the one to bring up field crown originally, I'm just linking this for everyone else's benefit. So even though the SSS article mentions nothing of some "field crown requirement" I don't think it's actually a valid criticism of the pitch at Qwest Field. I could not find actual documentation for other SSS about their field crowns, but I would expect that none of them are less than 6 inches. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting link, however it's not a FIFA regulation which all SSS and indeed most professional soccer stadiums are built to. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've searched high and low for such a "FIFA regulation" and haven't found anything. You clearly have such a link as you keep explaining the intricacies of it to us all. Well let's get it out in the open. Can you provide me a link? That would be great!.

I want to be clear here. My goal is not to force the point that Qwest field is a SSS based on my own opinion. I'm trying to gather verifiable facts to support this or refute it (even started the conversation with some verifiable facts). Unfortunately, all arguments against have not been based on verifiable facts (including the SSS article itself). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the arguments against SSS status are not lacking facts but are putting forward the idea that no facts exist to support the stands of Qwest as an SSS. Also, the Field of Play is Law 1 in the Laws of the Game (pdf).WeatherManNX01 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the laws of the game. Thank you for the link. I reread Law 1 and didn't see anything about field crown, crest, height or otherwise. Everything I did read there Qwest Field passes just fine (dimensions, markings, etc.). The more interesting test of Qwest Field (which I don't think has been performed yet) will be to give it a 1-star or 2-star FIFA rating (see here). I suspect that such a rating/certification will probably be administered before the MLS cup is played at Qwest this fall. BMO Field (an acknowledged SSS) received a 2-star rating (see here). However, based on the unreferenced counter arguments being presented, I suspect that even such a FIFA rating for Qwest field still won't be enough for some. I pointed at a few facts at the beginning of the discussion that hopefully proved that Qwest was designed for soccer from the beginning however, I confirm (as Bobblehead did) that I have yet to find any sources (MLS, newspaper or otherwise) that refer to Qwest as a "soccer-specific stadium". If I could point to such a source, I think this discussion would be over. Given that most of the arguments against continue to be unverified opinions, I am frustrated. Nevertheless, lacking a source that uses the term "soccer-specific stadium" in reference to Qwest Field pretty much makes any further dicussion moot. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind the phrase "soccer-specific stadium" is a hollow one. It is a catchy slogan that's easily tossed around to build buzz about stadiums (in general — particularly American/Canadian ones) catering to the sport of soccer. In main stream sports media, how often do you really hear the terms "baseball-specific stadium" and "football-specific stadium"? I'll bet not as often as SSS when the subject turns to MLS. When one gets right down to it, these are all just sports stadiums built with intended purposes (like Qwest for Seahawks) but with additional intentions in mind (Qwest for soccer). There is no real dictionary definition on what a SSS really is; it is all made up on the fly...like right now! In fact, I'd propose these qualifiers in the teams table about whether it is SSS or not be removed. For ambiguous reasons like what is discussed here, marking up the table with little numbers only adds confusing and no real value. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I could go for that. At this point, you can count me among the confused. These articles, footnotes, etc. have not clarified anything for me. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with this line "Three remaining clubs play in stadiums not originally built for MLS." Qwest field was built for MLS and the following line says RFK stadium was built as a NFL venue when it was built for baseball. I think the whole paragraph needs to be re-worded.--24.87.16.83 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually RFK was built as an NFL and MLB venue for the Redskins and Senators (and it hosted the NFL team first in 1961, baseball didn't come until the next year). And Qwest was not built for MLS. It was built to be able to host soccer as a secondary function, not MLS specifically, but originally it was built as a home for the Seahawks. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. Qwest was built for MLS, as the quote in this article illustrates. 1997 Spokesman-Review article See my entry above for more detailed argument. Enumclaw (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in that article you link to states it was designed for MLS or that it is a SSS. Just that it was designed with soccer in mind.Gateman1997 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article that clearly states that the prospect fo an MLS team was half of the motivation for building Qwest. But alas, given my conversation above (from nearly a year ago), I expect that this will do nothing to convince some editors. I expect that the fact that an NFL team inhabited the stadium first rules it out regardless of its design. What some will claim to be looking for (as Gateman1997 just hinted) is a source using the pharse "soccer-specific stadium" in reference to Qwest. That can't be found for a couple of reasons: (1) the term hadn't been inveted yet when Qwest was designed and built, and (2) it's really just a marketing term that MLS likes to use when talking about their own planned/built stadiums. What annoys me about the above conversation is that none of the SSS jargon in this article or the soccer-specific stadium article is referenced. Yet if you want to add Qwest to the list, a source specifically refering to it as a "soccer-specific stadium" must be provided or it will be reverted. Frankly, I'd like to see the soccer-specific stadium article deleted at this point. It's had that missing references banner at the top for nearly a year now with no movement. The claims made in the article were synthisized by Wikipedia editors. They are not verifiable and therefore should be deleted. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stadiums

The Seattle Sounders FC stadium, Quest Feild, was designed for both soccer, and American football. Would that not constitute Quest feild as both football and soccer specifc?

Quest Field:Quest Feild Qwest Field

Qoute From BallParks.com[1]:

"The $400 million football/soccer stadium and exhibition center will be owned by the public and funded by a private-public partnership. Private contributions will total at least $100 million, while the public will contribute up to $300 million through a new lottery and a variety of taxes generated by events in the stadium/exhibition center." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.bushnell (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed here for several times. The "soccer-specific stadium" term has a slight difference from "soccer stadium", and due to definition Quest Field is not a SSS. It's just a very nice football/soccer stadium. 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiJG? (talk • contribs)

I edited the notes on the stadiums to reflect that Qwest is both a soccer and (American) football design stadium. It's not a "soccer-specific stadium" like other venues, primarily because it's much bigger, but it's untrue to suggest that it was not specifically designed to host soccer. Enumclaw (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Clean Up

• MLS Wooden Spoon – Is this real? Does the league or supporter groups recognize this in some official way? If not, I say delete the article. Seems like a fan going over board.
• MLS Hall of Fame Game – Is this played anymore? Is it exclusive to MLS? This doesn't seem to be about a very significant event. This article could be deleted as well and move the info to the National Soccer Hall of Fame page or be rid of it all together.

--Blackbox77 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So nominate them for deletion. I would support the removal of both articles. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who lives near the National Soccer Hall of Fame, I can tell you that there wasn't a game at the HOF in either 2008 or 2009. The closest thing to a game this year (2009) was an AYSO tournament at the Hall held the day of the induction ceremony. KitHutch (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Wooden Spoon" it does appear to exist on at least a few websites that the article links to that I'd classify as reliable sources. It's not alot and it's got nothing official like the Supporter's Shield or MLS Cup... but it does seem to exist. I'd suggest however the article needs more references rather than deletion. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I created an AFD for MLS Wooden Spoon for failing to meet notability standards. Feel free to head over to the AFD to make your !vote. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article needs to be severely edited – to about half its current length. Too much trivia is included – a whole section on "Game First"? Compare the MLS article to the article on the Premiership to see how bloated the MLS one is. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seattle-Portland-Vancouver

When were they founded?

Seattle FC is essentially the same team that played in USL correct? Well same front office?

Should we not have that they were founded in 1994? same with the other 2. --Ceezmad (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, all three franshises are new expansion teams set up by MLS. Just because they have similar names does not make them the same franchise. KitHutch (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Kithutch. While they share some or all of the name, they're not the same franchises any more than the old NASL franchises are the same as the MLS and USL sides that share the name. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Player Stats

I noticed that Edson Buddle was not BOLDED in the list of top goal scorers, even though he is an active player. I fixed it. 148.134.37.3 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jersey Sponsors table

Here is the table that had been added to the article:

As in the article – click [show] to expand

Major League Soccer Jersey Sponsorship Deals
Team	Jersey Sponsor	Product Type	Value
Chicago Fire	Best Buy	Retail electronics chain	$2-4 million per year ($7.5 over 3yrs)
Chivas USA	Comex (Group)	4th largest architectural paint manufacturer in North America	$2 million per year
Columbus Crew	Glidden	Paint manufacturer	$1 million per year
DC United	Volkswagen	Car manufacturer	$3.1-3.7 million per year ($14M over 5yrs)
Houston Dynamo	Amigo Energy	Retail energy provider	$1.9 million per year
Los Angeles Galaxy	Herbalife	Health suppliments	$4-5 million per year
Real Salt Lake	XanGo	Health/Energy drink	$1 million per year
New York Red Bulls	Red Bull	Energy drink	Part of $100 million deal for team & stadium
Seattle Sounders FC (2009 expansion)	Xbox 360 Live	Microsoft gaming system	$4 million per year ($20 over 5 yrs)
Toronto FC	BMO	BMO Financial Group (financial holdings including Bank of Montreal)	$1-1.5 million per year
Colorado Rapids	no jersey sponsor
FC Dallas	no jersey sponsor
Kansas City Wizards	no jersey sponsor
New England Revolution	no jersey sponsor
San Jose Earthquakes	no jersey sponsor
Philadelphia Club (2010 expansion)	None announced yet

I removed the table because 1) there was considerable controversey about this the last time it was added, 2) it looked really out of place where it was in the article, and 3) it needs to be better formatted before going in the article. So I've moved it to this spot in order to get consensus on whether it should go in the article in the first place, and if it gets support, how to make it smaller/better formatted to go in the article.

Major League Soccer Shirt Sponsorships

Team	Sponsor	Value
Chicago Fire	Best Buy	$7.5M over 3 years
Chivas USA	Comex	$2M per year
Columbus Crew	Glidden	$1M per year
D.C. United	Volkswagen	$14M over 5 years
Houston Dynamo	Amigo Energy	$1.9M per year
Los Angeles Galaxy	Herbalife	$4M-$5M per year
Real Salt Lake	XanGo	$500K-$1M per year
Red Bull New York	Red Bull	Part of $100M deal in 2006 for team & stadium
Seattle Sounders FC (2009)	Xbox 360 Live	$20M over 5 years
Toronto FC	BMO	$1M-$1.5M per year

I just want to point out that I have no problem with this info going into the article somehow, I just think there is a more artful way of doing it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New table format is much cleaner and more concise. The original table had multiple citations in the dollar column --denoted by the numeric footnote links. Grant, do you think those should be kept? Would it would add credibility? Klr rsl (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs all of that info, just a simple link to the article would be fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chivas 2010 shirt sponsor source is currently a link to chivas' twitter account. Is twitter nowadays a verifiable source? --Anttipng (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Montreal team name

Join the discussion about Montreal's name. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

MLS is a United States league with a Canadian team

After a few back and forth reverts of the opening line, seems we need a discussion about this. I come with an open mind and the potential to be presented with facts they may alter my perspective. as for now here are the facts that show that MLS is a US league, not a US and Canadian league:

1. The United States Soccer Federation is the sole governing body. The Canadian Soccer Association has zero powers over the league, zero input. Further, the league pays its dues per team to the USSF, including monies for the sole Canadian team. The CSA receives no money from MLS.

2. Major League Soccer, L.L.C. is incorporated in the state of NY as a United States corporation with its headquarters located at 420 5th Ave. New York, NY 10018. It does not have any articles of incorporation in Canada, nor does it exist on any level as a Canadian corporation.

3. FIFA recognizes MLS as a US league. Approval was sought by the USSF from FIFA, to allow a Canadian team to join the US league, which was granted. At no time was authorization sought, nor granted, to have a bi-national league as does exist in other parts of the world.

4. A similiar situation can be found in Major League Baseball, also having a sole Canadian team, and is in no way shape or form considered anything but an American league with a Canadian team competing in it.

further, in the paragraph my edit keeps being reverted to:

"(MLS) is the top-flight professional soccer league in the United States and Canada. The league comprises 15 teams, 14 in the U.S. and one in Canada. MLS represents the top tier of the American and Canadian soccer pyramids."

the first sentence is A) factually incorrect, B) redundant to the third sentence.

the paragraph including my edit:

"(MLS) is the top-flight professional soccer league based in the United States overseen by the United States Soccer Federation. The league comprises 15 teams, 14 in the U.S. and one in Canada. MLS represents the top tier of the American and Canadian soccer pyramids."

is A) factually sound, B) offers a higher concentration of information without being repetitive.

We all are obviously passionate about the league which i think is fantastic, but wikipedia is about being factually correct, not displaying the facts through our personal bias. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is doing anything based on personal bias, so don't worry about that. I'm not Canadian, so I have no interest in making the league appear more Canadian than it is. The basis for my reversions is the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian. There are teams from the United States and Canada, and they play in the cup competitions sanctioned by the United States and Canada. The teams in the league can compete in international competition if they are nominated by their respective associations. More to the point, however, nowhere in the current version is anything mentioned about the league being associated with the Canadian Soccer Association, and any insinuation on your part that it does is just that, insinuation. I also disagree with the phrase "overseen by the United States Soccer Federation" as it implies that U.S. Soccer has input on the day-to-day operation of the league, which it does not. I'm also open to this as well, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Nothing in the lead, as currently written is incorrect. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"The basis for my reversions is the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian."

so you agree that the legal definition of MLS, is that it is a US league. you mention "the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian", what fact(s) is that exactly, because you have not provided any?

"There are teams from the United States and Canada"

as there are in MLB. explain to me how MLS is different.

"The teams in the league can compete in international competition if they are nominated by their respective associations."

Every team in MLS can qualify for the Concacaf Champions League (regional competition) by either winning the Supporters Sheild, or MLS Cup...except for TFC, because they are not a US team. The only avenue they have to entering the CCL is by winning the Canadian Cup.

"nowhere in the current version is anything mentioned about the league being associated with the Canadian Soccer Association, and any insinuation on your part that it does is just that, insinuation."

I never said that it did. I offered the correct governing bodies as supporting, and irrefutable evidence of the fact that MLS is an American league.

"I also disagree with the phrase "overseen by the United States Soccer Federation" as it implies that U.S. Soccer has input on the day-to-day operation of the league, which it does not."

It doesn't need day to day input to hold heavy influence, right down to supplying every ref for every MLS match. MLS has to seek USSF approval on a wide range of issues.

Please provide the facts that show MLS to be a bi-national league. The facts that supersede the legal definition you agree defines MLS as an American league. The facts that supersede the global authorities (FIFA) recognized designation of MLS as an American league. Please explain how MLS is different then MLB in regard to them being American leagues. Please explain how the USSF can be the governing body while the CSA has no power over the league, yet it is still a bi-national league. Please explain why TFC cannot enter a FIFA sanctioned regional competition by winning MLS Cup because they are a Canadian team.

Please provide the evidence to support your assertion, or cede the point.72.224.163.182 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first hop off of the WP:WIKILAWYER high horse. You're missing the forrest for the trees. I agree with you that MLS has its headquarters based in New York City, and I agree that the CSA has no input regarding MLS. I'm arguing that in the lead of the article, it is more important to convey the general sense of a subject than the technical fact, and I think that if you asked 100 people whether the statement: "Major League Soccer is the top-flight league in the United States and Canada," you would get 95 people saying "true," which is all the opening sentence says. My guess is you would get the same regarding USL. The league opperates a team (soon to be two or more) in Canada, they do business with Canadian companies, Canadian teams can represent Canada in international competition (I never said that they were eligable through all the berths American teams are), and the general truth of the matter is that they are, "the top flight-league in the United States and Canada." That doesn't mean that sentence conveys every possible aspect of Major League Soccer's status as an "American" league, but it isn't meant to. We're not composing a brief about the legal status of MLS, we're writing the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So having a decent vocabulary, backing up my position with facts, and requesting supporting information from you (which you have yet to provide any of) is wikilawyering? i won't apologize for my vocabulary, nor lower myself to the personal attack.

"I'm arguing that in the lead of the article, it is more important to convey the general sense of a subject than the technical fact"

the general sense of the subject of the MLS article, is the league, not your personal feelings about it, or your imaginary 100 people. did you seriously just use 100 figments of your imagination as supporting "evidence" to back up your position? i spend far to much of my free time on bigsoccer (the largest MLS forums i know of) and i can not disagree with you and your 100 imaginary people more.

"and the general truth of the matter is that they are, "the top flight-league in the United States and Canada."

it's not a truth general or otherwise. it's not a truth at all. while MLS may represent the top of the Canadian soccer pyramid, it does not represent the top Canadian league. http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=can/nationalleague/standings.html the sentence is incorrect.

"We're not composing a brief about the legal status of MLS, we're writing the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article."

Striving for accuracy equals "writing a brief"? So are you trying to tell me, in your opinion, an entry in an encyclopedia should be more concerned with "feelings" and personal interpretations then actual facts? you state your feelings and personal interpretations as if they are the definitive position, which they are not, and i strongly disagree with them. neither of our personal feelings should be published in this article...just the facts. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking your vocabulary at all, merely your overly aggressive attitude. You claim not to resort to personal attack, but regularly take a dismissive and demeaning tone. You know perfectly well the point I was making, but are insistant on an overly technical phrasing in the lead sentence of an article, and I believe that phrasing to misrepresent the accepted truth about the league. You concede that the league is at the top of the Canadian Soccer Pyramid, but won't allow the first sentence of the article to say that the league is the top-flight league in Canada? Again, I think you're missing the forrest for the trees. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i provided you a link to FIFA.com that displays the top tier league in Canada. You've ignored every fact I've posted, you make assertions like "the accepted truth about the league" without backing it up. i do not agree that your bias is the accepted truth. in fact i disagree. do you also think that major league baseball is a US and Canadian league? you have provided nothing to show me why your sentence is more correct, other then your personal feelings. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was the top-tier league in Canada, then it would be at the top of the Canadian Soccer Pyramid, wouldn't it? MLS was given special dispensation to admit Toronto FC because the CSA argued that they should be allowed to co-opt MLS as they can't get a "top-tier" league going in Canada because of the size, population, and interest in soccer in Canada. MLS operates a team in Canada, its level of play is higher than any other in Canada, and it is the top-flight league in Canada. While this might not convey the full spectrum of issues relating to soccer in Canada, that isn't the purpose of the first sentence of the article about Major League Soccer. This is like arguing that it is incorrect to say "Barack Obama was elected with 53% (or whatever %) of the vote on November 4, 2008" because he was technically elected by 538 people in the Electoral College in December. Both of those concepts are accurate, but the other requires an explanation that most people don't need to be familiar with, or care about. I would argue these situations are roughly similar. While the CSL might technically be the top-flight league in Canada, for all intents and purposes, it is MLS, and I think most people would back me up on that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is disingenuous to ask for a third opinion while claiming that I think I own the article. I'd ask you to back that up with proof from our discussion. I've never made any argument in this discussion or any other that is based on anything but the issue at hand. I've been nothing but civil, and I wish you would do the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"MLS operates a team in Canada, its level of play is higher than any other in Canada, and it is the top-flight league in Canada."

the fact that MLS offers a higher level of competition is why it can arguably rest at the top of the pyramid, but it does not make it in part a Canadian league. you still have given me any insight why MLB, which is in the exact same situation, is considered an American league with a Canadian team, but MLS should not.

your mixing your analogies. the debate here is between verifiable fact, and your opionion that you have offered no support for, other then your opinion on other peoples opinion. the opening line i suggest covey's relevant, factual and informative information to a reader who may not be familiar with the league. not to mention your suggested version (if we ignore the factual error) has the 1st and 3rd sentence offering redundant information.

your preferred opening line is either incorrect, or repetitive. take your pick. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not the first to feel that you have taken ownership of this article as evidenced by item 5 on this talk page. and you asking me for proof is irony at its best.

Allegations =/= Guilt. Not a single person, when confronted by me about the fallacy of that allegation has pursued it further, and the fact that you've resorted to throwing around allegations of ownership (not to mention your obvious increase in typos and disregard for capitalization after taking much pride earlier in your vocabulary) shows that you're arguing from a place of rage, rather than reason. Please, take a break and we'll resume this issue after the third party input you've requested has weighed in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

no, it's not rage, it's me getting tired. lack of capitalization is my normal MO online. i didn't think this was going to drag out so long, and if its going to, i should probably pull on my comfortable sweats and go at it relaxed instead of formal as i started. i agree Allegations =/= Guilt. its just my opinion, and Opinion =/= True.72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm tired as well. Can we call a truce until we get some other input? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i thought you'd never ask. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Seems to me that the obvious parallel here is with the Scottish Football League. The lead of that describes it as a "league of football teams in Scotland", and I doubt anyone would deny that it is a Scottish league, under the auspices of the Scottish Football Association. But one team in that league (Berwick Rangers F.C.) is from England, not Scotland. So it seems to me that the text we have now – the MLS is a US league that happens to have a Canadian team in it – is both correct, and neutral. We can got into the further details of why it has a Canadian team in it in the body of the article. Anaxial (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion Here's my two cents. The opening of the article for the Football League Championship says that it "is the highest division of The Football League and second-highest division overall in the English football league system after the Premier League." However, Cariff City in Wales is also a member of the league. If we are going by what other articles say, then I think we need to consider MLS a US league with Canadian team(s). Also, it's incorrect to say that the CSA has no influence over MLS. There are Canadian refs who do MLS games. They maybe assigned by USSF, but they get all their training and certifications from the CSA. KitHutch (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there's an entire article on this phenomenon, which does, indeed, include Toronto F.C. as an example. Anaxial (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article... --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with how Anaxial stated it: "The MLS is a US (as in USSF affiliated) league that happens to have a Canadian team in it." But really we should be looking for sources that back this up so there is no ambiguity on how to state it. At ussoccer.com there is an "About U.S. Soccer" tab underneath which is the link Organizational Structure (which has a nifty chart!). More so than the "pyramid model" of European promotion-relegation football associations, this "flowchart model" more accurately and officially represents how the USSF (and likely CSA) is structured. If you click on the MLS logo, you get this page. After reading it, it obviously hasn't been updated since 2003 however it very clearly states "Major League Soccer is the U.S. Soccer-sanctioned Division I outdoor professional soccer league in the United States." If this were rewritten today I'd imagine the sentence would end with "...and Canada." Frankly that's the perfect sentence: "Major League Soccer is the U.S. Soccer-sanctioned Division I outdoor professional soccer league in the United States and Canada." It is neutral, official, sourced, and correct. Naturally it could be tweaked to better flow with the article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The About MLS page would seem to support no mention of Canada in the opening sentence. It also appears to have been updated just prior to this season, but before Vancouver and Portland were announced. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am under the mindset that the MLS is a USA soccer league that has allowed a few Canadian teams to play in. Those Canadian teams are ineligible for USA's CONCACAF spots and are barred from playing in the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup. There is also a contradiction in the Canadian Soccer League opening statement:

"The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is the top soccer league in Canada and is sanctioned by the Ontario Soccer Association.[1] ."

One of these articles needs a rewritten intro.Ciderbarrel (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impresion that if Toronto (Vancouber) make it to the MLS cup Final or Win the Regular season, they will play in the CONCACAF Champions. Is this wrong? --Ceezmad (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is incorrect. If a canadian team wins MLS cup, or the supporters shield, they can not qualify for the CCL by those achievements, but a US team can as MLS is seen as a US domestic competition. a canadian team can only qualify for the CCL through it's own domestic competition. this is probably the clearest evidence that MLS is a US domestic league, and the canadian cup is not a US domestic competition.Triplehelix76 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we source the statement "If a canadian team wins MLS cup, or the supporters shield, they can not qualify for the CCL by those achievements"? --Blackbox77 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The berths for the 24 teams are allocated by country, or in the case of the Caribbean, by region." From the Champions League website. Additionally, Appendix A of the Champions League regulations lists the qualifying teams as USA1, USA2, USA3, USA4, and CAN1. It's up to the member associations to determine how their country's teams qualify (section 3 of the regulations). Thus, U.S. Soccer determines that U.S. teams qualify through MLS, while the CSA has decided on qualification via the Canadian Championship. In theory, it'd be possible for the CSA to allow a Canadian team to qualify via MLS Cup if a Canadian team indeed wins the competition (though I'm sure the other Canadian teams wouldn't be too happy with that). WeatherManNX01 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I actually did some research myself and found that PDF as well but for the life of me couldn't find Appendix A. Apparently it was just at the bottom of the page... That's good info to know about how CONCACAF Champions League and MLS interact with each other. But to address a separate issue, that doesn't mean the Canadian Championship is any less of a domestic cup from MLS' perspective than the US Open Cup. MLS is a league of American and Canadian teams with member clubs being of equal importance no matter their country of origin. The Open Cup holds no more of a special position with eligible clubs than the Canadian Championship. We all agree the league is the top of both countries' pyramids. Just because MLS is headquartered (or based) in the US doesn't mean its any less integrated into the Canadian soccer system. Even MLS' website provides just as much coverage of the Canadian Championship as the Open Cup. Mexico not withstanding, MLS = North America. There is no de facto division 1 American league or Canadian league. In practice, there is only a division 1 North American league whose member clubs are aloud to compete in one of two equally relevant domestic competitions. MLS is apart of two domestic cups. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i don't believe the CSA could elect to award a CCL berth to an MLS winner because it would run the high likelihood of having no team to represent the country. possibly they could request special clearance, but i imagine the CCL ruling body wouldn't be happy to allow a non-domestic competition to award the slot where a non canadian team could win it. that is just my thoughts though and i've run accross no evidence to back that up.

blackbox, i can see where your coming from, but it's not factual. MLS existed for 12 years prior to the addition of a canadian team. when TFC came in, there was no restructuring of the league. an application was submitted to FIFA to allow a canadian team(s) to play in the US domestic league, not to form a bi-national league. the inclusion of a team or teams from a foreign country does not make the league a bi-national league, nor does the ruling body designating a foreign league as their top tier. it's a single countries domestic league that includes a team from another country. the fact that MLS is a US league means that the domestic cup of another country can not be a domestic cup for a US league. as was posted above in the third/fourth opinion, it's a situation not specific to MLS, and none of the example represent a bi-national league, only a single countries domestic league that has a team from another country, and it even includes TFC – Football clubs playing in the league of another country [personal note: the internet sucks at conveying inflection. i'm happy to have this discussion with another person as into MLS as i am] Triplehelix76 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering the Australian A-league is an Australian league even though it has a team from Wellington (New Zealand) Wellington is also from another confederation but still an aussie league, same as MLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Domestic Honors Section

Is it really desirable/necessary to include conference championships and playoff wins in the domestic honors section? I've noticed an IP user adding these to teams, and I wasn't sure it was really notable enough to warrant continued inclusion. Jroushkolb (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue for individual team pages. However, I think honors for regular season conference champions are appropriate but playoff conference champions are not. KitHutch (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted it here, because I wanted to get a broader consensus across the entire league, particularly when the edits are being made by an IP user. Jroushkolb (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming WP:TFA

I thought some of the contributors here might be interested that 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has been scheduled to appear as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page this coming Sunday, September 26. It will appear on the main page 10 days prior to this year's Open Cup final. Hopefully this will raise awarness of the tournament. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger's comments

Just a quick explanation for why I removed Arsene Wenger's comments about leagues playing between February and November. First off, the comments were not specifically in support of MLS's schedule, but rather a time frame that happens to include MLS's schedule, while the comments by Blatter and others were specifically critical of the timing of MLS's schedule. Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the comment is talking about a season that starts in February and ends in November, or a season that starts in August, takes a break in December and January, then ends in May like they do in a number of northern European leagues and Russia. Most articles that I've seen have been interpreting his comments to be about the latter and not the former. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Single Entity Article

I'm thinking of creating an article discussing the single-entity structure found in sports. Obviously this applies to more than just MLS but since single entity is often discussed here, I figured this would be a good place to look for some feed back. Here's a working opening paragraph:

In sports, a single entity is a league whose teams are considered a single joint venture rather than a collection of individual businesses. Instead of being run by independent team owners, a single-entity league is centrally controlled by its investors allowing them to have control of multiple teams. For example, players sign contracts owned by the league as opposed to ones owned by individual teams. This allows the league to control where athletes will play by potentially placing them where they will be most valuable to the league as a whole. The single-entity structure allows leagues to control player costs and allocation, create parity, lower operating costs, allocate risk among investors, share revenue, pool broadcasting and licensing rights, and easily make decisions in the best interests in developing the league.

Obviously the article itself could delve into the finer points like a brief history of single entity, the operator/investor's control over their individual team, examples of single-entity leagues, how this all relates to the Sherman Antitrust Act, legal topics (Fraser v. MLS, American Needle v. NFL), etc. Thoughts? --Blackbox77 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern with the opening paragraph is that it is too focused on the MLS definition of single entity. MLS is the only league that centrally owns teams and centrally controls players and your sentence about placing players where they are most valuable isn't accurate at all. MLS signs the contracts, but it is really the teams that decide who goes where, i.e. MLS isn't going to stop the Wizards from signing Lionel Messi because he'd be more valuable to the league if he was in LA or NY. Even though NFL is trying to claim they are a single-entity, they don't have their teams controlled by the league and player movement is a lot freer. NFL only tries to control business with the league. Also, single-entity isn't necessarily going to create parity on its own, that's what the salary cap does. It is possible that a single entity league could exist that does not have a salary cap and, in that case, you would see teams like LA, Seattle, and NY pulling away from the other teams because they could afford higher salaries, or are at least willing to spend more. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about being too MLS focused. That is something I want to attempt to avoid despite MLS being the most prominent example of a true SE. However (I do have sources to back this up) but leagues like the UFL, the reborn AFL, and some others actually have defined themselves as a SE and use systems of player allocation and centralized control. Officials from these leagues can also be quoted as explicitly saying they use SE to attain parity, operate cost-effectively, etc. You're also right about MLS teams/owners/front offices are the ones in practice controlling player movement. However that doesn't mean the owners (investors) don't from time to time make collective decisions in special cases (whether its about players or some other issue). MLS' own history already records this. I think all I mean by my draft paragraph is that in general single entities operate this way if they choose to and in fact in many cases do. That doesn't mean all single-entity leagues go about, for example, player allocation in the same way, but the fact that they have systems in place for doing so makes them unique in comparison to more traditional sports leagues. And as a final response to your post, I only bring up leagues like the NFL to illustrate that although they are not recognized as SE, they try to characterize themselves as being so to reap the advantages SE has to offer. I certainly don't believe the NFL controls its teams and I don't think we'd find any independent sources who would believe that either. Thanks for your help. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 / 2011 chart of teams

I've just restored the chart showing the teams for 2010 (diff), which showed conference alignments plus a few selected column headings, e.g., location, stadium, founding, coach. The newer, straight table alignment eliminates useful information (e.g., conference affiliation) and adds other (unsourced) information of marginal relevance or uncertain meaning, e.g., "Number of seasons of current spell in MLS" or "first year in top tier". In my opinion it makes more sense to wait until MLS makes up its mind about how it wants to align its teams in 2011 before making wholesale revisions to the table of teams; or at least, any such change should be made only after discussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Not sure why that table was added to the page as it is formatted to pertain to a pro/rel league system like in England, not the franchise based system used in the US. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MLS Redirect

I think MLS should redirect to here. Thoughts? Akyoyo94 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's currently a disambig page and I think it should be left that way. If anything, "Multiple Listing Service" (used by nearly every real estate agent in the country) is a much more common use of the acronym than "Major League Soccer", so it would redirect there first anyway. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Skotywa. We could perhaps boldface Major League Soccer and Multiple Listing Service; since they are, by far, the most common uses of the acronym. Twwalter (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

MLS Cup vs. MLS Supporters' Shield: The real league champion

Throughout the league's article and related articles, we're saying that the MLS Cup determines the winner of the respective season. I feel that this is misinforming, because the MLS season is divided into two parts (technically): regular season and playoffs, although I believe the playoffs can be distinguished as their own separate competition under the umbrella of MLS.

This is because the MLS Cup is the finals match for the playoff tournament, which is only limited to certain MLS cup, based off of regular season standings. The winner of the regular season wins the Supporters Shield, and the incentives for both the Shield and Cup are identical. So, when we say the MLS Cup winner is the champion of the MLS regular season, it makes it sound like it determines the regular season champions, whereas if we say the MLS Cup winner is the champion the playoffs, it's easier to determine that they won the post-season tournament, not the regular season. The league itself never specifically says who is the true winner of the entire season. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this discussion is here.

The MLS Cup is awarded to the League Champion, which is determined by a series of playoff games to which the teams earn spots based on their regular season performance. In the MLS Cup match, the Western Conference Champion meets the Eastern Conference Champion [2] and the League Champion is determined. The Supporters' Shield is a trophy awarded to the team with the best regular season record. It is an award, not a championship. This setup can be cruel in that a superior team may lose during the playoff process and be denied the championship, but that's how they do it in sports in the US, MLS included. (A quick Google search on " 'MLS Cup' champion" will turn up an abundance of reliable sources that characterize the MLS Cup winner as league champion. A similar search on Supporters' Shield does not.) In my view once reliable sources begin to describe the two trophies as reflecting two championships, then the text of the articles can be amended to reflect it. For the time being, however, MLS each season has one champion, and that's the winner of the MLS Cup. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The most telling thing about the SS's relationship with league championship is that the SS is awarded by the fans of the precious seasons SS winner to the fans of the current SS winner. The league plays no role in the awarding of the trophy. If the SS was really the league championship, it would be awarded to the team by the league, not by fans to fans.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's awarded by MLS. It's sort of hard to tell, because MLS doesn't talk much about it. I think it's called the "Supporters' Shield" because fans designed it and provided the impetus for its creation. There is certainly some enthusiasm for elevating the importance of the thing, but what comes through such articles to me is that, as of right now, the Supporters' Shield really isn't much more than a consolation prize for the team that got stiffed by the playoff process. (Or, in rare cases, a nice additional bauble for the team that manages to compile the best record and win the Cup.) Here are two such articles, FWIW: [3], [4]. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The "award ceremony" is at the Supporter's Summit at the MLS Cup and is done by the fans of the previous SS to fans of the current SS. Its an award created by the fans, for the fans. MLS may have embraced the award but this is a fan award.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fired up the Google machine and found this article.[5] Turns out we're both right. The darn thing is awarded up to three different times a season. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another point of confusion is that there are some soccer fans who dislike how MLS decides its champion so much that they refer to the SS winner as the champion out of disgust of the American-style playoff system. But make no mistake about it, you'll never find a SS winner described as the league champion unless it is by a very misinformed or spiteful person. --Blackbox77 (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The current article about the Shield specifies that it determines the regular season champions. I don't see anything wrong with that. I believe it is also stated fairly well in MLS' main article, and even on the MLS Cup article. Twwalter (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blackbox said all that needs to be said. This recent push by IPs has been annoying.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing the Canadian Championship under "Domestic Cup(s)"

To be clear, this is not an "Is MLS American or American and Canadian?" argument. Should the Canadian Championship be listed in the infobox with the US Open Cup?

Personally I think it should. From my perspective the info line is asking what domestic cups (no matter where they are domestic to) do clubs in this league participate? MLS, being an American league, is still apart of two different countries' pyramids meaning it will naturally be associated with two different cups. In the infobox we already list the two countries the league exists in, the two soccer pyramids, and the television partnerships on both sides of the boarder. Listing both domestic cups teams might participate in does not take away from MLS being an American league. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

MLS Box

With the announcement of conferences on mlssoccer.com (PDX, VAN-> West; HOU->East) it is time to put the expansion teams into their proper conferences! Always an exciting time. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Commissioner

We should put a subsection in MLS' infobox saying that the commissioner is Don Garber. Thoughts anyone? Twwalter (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether we do it or not doesn't matter to me. It is standard in other American sports league articles. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Team location map

Someone with the technical expertise in these things needs to alter the MLS team location map to indicate that Houston has gone to the Eastern Conference – perhaps make the coloring of Texas a combination of khaki and blue stripes? (or something less garish)? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes...have the state of Texas have strips, but have the team's location 'spot' the color of its respectable conference.Treyvo (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Or just get rid of the state colors completely and let the color of the dots show a city's conference?

To whoever changed the map – bravo! Looks great. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh..I liked the idea of strips, but okay.. Treyvo (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is everyone's opinion? Putting Texas in stripes or the current 1-2 split? Or no state colors with better markers? --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine the way it is. No need to create work for the sake of it. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparent error about Houston Dynamo

At one point the Dynamo is listed as one of the six expansion teams. But that's not true, the Dynamo came here from San Jose where they had been the Earthquakes.208.185.201.194 (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was done retrospectively when San Jose came back into the league and Houston gave up their claim to San Jose's titles and history; at that point, San Jose simply took back the history of the team prior to the move to Houston, and Houston were considered an expansion team the year the Quakes moved. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Houston was technically an expansion team when they joined the league. However, they were allowed to retain the players, coaches, and front office staff of the Earthquakes, who became inactive for a few years. KitHutch (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct on all counts. From a historical perspective, Houston was an expansion franchise that first began play in 2006. They have no history prior to that season whereas the Earthquakes will be entering their 14th season in 2011. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I think this clarification should be a part of the MLS article. I live in Houston and I did not know this, the local media did not play up the "expansion" aspect of the new team. It sounds just like what the NFL did when the Cleveland Browns in effect closed up shop when the players and owner moved to Baltimore.208.185.201.194 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly what the Browns did actually. I believe they used the Browns situation as a template from my understanding of it, and the results were indeed the same. Like the Browns the Quakes were historically considered inactive for two seasons, and remain a charter member of the league with two championships, etc... Gateman1997 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cascadia Cup should probably be removed from the Rival section or Replaced

Ok here's the deal guys. With what we have going on in the preseason and also the 2 expansion teams participating in the Heritage Cup this season, it looks like the Cascadia Cup will not take place in MLS. The reason for that is the Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC are joining the Heritage Cup rivalry with San Jose and Seattle. It makes no sense at all to battle for the Cascadia Cup and the Heritage Cup in one match, which is why I believe the Cascadia Cup won't take place during the regular season and it should be removed from the Rivalry section. Instead, on March 4–6, Vancouver, Portland and Seattle will square off at Starfire in a little preseason tournament called the Cascadia Summit with Seattle taking on Vancouver on March 4, Portland against Vancouver on March 5 and Seattle taking on Portland on March 6. So another option would be to replace the Cascadia Cup rivalry with the Cascadia Summit rivalry. You guys with me on this or are there any concerns? – Michael (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't two cups be contested during the same game? The Cascadia Cup has always been a regular season event between the 3 NW teams and I don't see why that would change just because they're also involved in the Heritage Cup as well... Gateman1997 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a single supporter of the Cascadia clubs that would place the Heritage Cup ahead of the Cascadia Cup. The Cascadia Cup will be contested in 2011 during the regular season without question. 100%. Book it. It's the supporters' cup, not the league's. The question is whether the Timbers and Whitecaps fans want to enter the Heritage Cup (hint: they don't). DemonJuice (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, your hint doesn't help me. And also Portland, San Jose, Seattle and Vancouver all played for the Heritage Cup back in those old NASL days, so they're obviously gonna enter. You guys with me on this or are there any concerns? – Michael (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick question, the Heritage Cup was created to be contested by teams that had old NASL nicknames. How could Portland, San Jose, Seattle and Vancouver play for it in the NASL if it didn't exist in the NASL? KitHutch (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they didn't. Mikemor was incorrect. The Heritage Cup was created as a joint thing between Soccer Silicon Valley and the Seattle Supporter's groups in 2009. It has so far been contested in 09 and 10. SSV is working with the Portland and Vancouver groups to incorporate them into it as well. But it has no bearing on the Cascadia Cup which is of course contested between the Northwest teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DemonJuice on this. If one of these rivalry cups is going to be removed it should the the Heritage Cup. Here are some links to illustrate how unimportant it has been to Sounders FC over the last two years: 1, 2. The Cascadia Cup is already more important to all teams involved than the Heritage Cup and it hasn't even been contested by MLS clubs yet. --SkotyWA^T_C 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we removing anything? This should be a comprehensive list of the rivalry cups. And despite Sigi's lack of enthusiasm last season for it, the Heritage Cup is a fan awarded cup that the Seattle supporters groups are currently in physical possession of and will be contested this season. As will the Cascadia Cup. We should list both. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, they didn't compete for it in the NASL? That's strange. Sorry guys, to be honest, I wasn't alive during the NASL days. lol. But should we at least add the Cascadia Summit up there too? – Michael (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

Looks like Blackbox removed the criticism from the competition format section deeming it "inappropriate".[6] My question here is, what better place to include criticism of the competition format of the league than in the section describing the competition format of the league.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about it one way or the other but on the whole think I prefer the revised organization. Blackbox didn't remove any content, and by consolidating criticisms in one place, with their own heading, may actually highlight them. I also see his point about keeping the "competition format" section simply descriptive, i.e., "here is what MLS does", and placing commentary about that system elsewhere. JohnInDC (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't that content was removed, but that it was moved out of the section that it is most associated with. Having criticisms quarantined off in their own section is a sign of poor writing, only serves to highlight the criticisms, divorces the criticisms from that which is being criticized, and, to a certain extent, the entire sections become troll magnets and often become bloated with random criticisms and responses to the criticism. While there certainly isn't consensus on whether or not criticism sections should be removed/included in articles, there needs to be a reason other than "but it doesn't look good". MLS's competition format has been criticized, rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter, but burying that criticism down at the bottom of the article does a disservice to readers of this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I prefer one place for the description and another for the commentary. I personally wouldn't say that it "doesn't look good" but instead that the commentary comes out of the blue – particularly, as it was, wedged in between the domestic description and SuperLiga. It's really sort of tangential at that point and, by breaking up the section is likewise – IMHO – a sign of poor writing. Criticisms should be set off in some fashion, whether up front and attached to the competition format section, or separately and elsewhere. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I don't mean to strike a nerve. If you read the edit summary you linked to, I did not remove the criticisms from the first section because "it doesn't look good." My point was that "Competition format" is a very important section that – along with the opening paragraphs – pretty much defines what the league is. Giving its definition without framing it in opinion and commentary makes the section more of an unbiased encyclopedic explanation. That is to say MLS' competition format is neither good nor bad, it just is. If you feel strongly otherwise, I'm happy for you to revert my edits and continue discussion here. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, I'd argue whether or not the article even needs to include criticisms like it currently does. Are this critiques of the league that notable they need to be covered so extensively? Quickly glancing over other major soccer and American sports league articles, I could only find two that even had a criticism section (Premier League and Ligue 1) yet we know they all have major faults. Some of the American sports leagues have sections specifically highlighting an issue that really is a major notable point. e.g. MLB & steroids. Are MLS' criticisms so important? Anything can technically be criticized yet the three this article points out are only ones that have been in the news relatively recently. IMO I wouldn't even consider pro-reg a serious criticism as there are plenty of counter arguments as to why not having it is a good thing. As for the FIFA calendar and playoff controversy, I'd either work those points into the "Organization" and "History" sections respectively or do away with them entirely. I'm sure there are many many more criticisms out there if we research yet including them would never really enhance the article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Get rid of the pro-rel discussion, and work the other two into the prose of the other sections. Good suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the criticism section is going to be included, it should be near the bottom. Most people don't come to the MLS page to see what Sepp Blatter thinks. Also, the criticism about the summer schedule should be refuted within the section. A handful of countries operate summer leagues, usually northern countries with harsh winters (Russia, Nordic Europe). Only a few MLS cities are in mild climates of the southern USA, the rest have winter. Also, and probably more importantly, the MLS does have to compete for attention with American football. the NFL and NCAA seasons run thru the winter and MLS could not compete. It's not as much a stadium issue as it is a fan and tv issue. Donutcity (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC nomination for Today's Featured Article

A note for the regular editors here... the Seattle Sounders FC article has been nominated to appear on the main page on March 19, the 2 year anniversary of the club's inaugural game. I encourage regular editors of MLS related articles to take a moment to read the blurb (literally only 7 sentences long) and add your support to the nomination. Getting an MLS club article on the main page will be a great way to recognize American soccer (an under-represented soccer region when it comes to main page representation), and is an opportunity to put a spotlight on the league during opening weekend. When you read the blurb, note that the first wikilink is to this very article. We all work hard on various MLS related articles and this is also an opportunity to draw attention to our great work. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Club vs. Franchise

There seems to have been a lot of attention in the last month given to whether an MLS team should be described as a club or a franchise. In my opinion, they are both correct and one should not be considered more correct than the other. American sports teams in any league – including soccer – are alternatively called clubs, franchises, teams, and a host of other names. There is no one right generic label to describe a sports team. But that is not to say the names have equal definitions. In some instances, using the word "club" may specifically refer to the hierarchy and organization of the overall institution. And likewise using the word "franchise" could provide context as to how a team is organized in relation to other teams within its league. Also other parts of the world may use "club" more frequently because the traditional definition is actually the more accurate one. But if a sentence is not directly describing these sorts of instances, either word is appropriate to use as a generic descriptor. It is therefore at the discretion of the original editor which word fits best and not another editor's place to override their decision just because it doesn't "feel" right. If someone is rewriting "club" as "franchise" or vice versa, this editor needs to give a verified reason – not an opinion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, as indeed sports teams in the US are often called "clubs" colloquially, especially in Major League Baseball. But the concern here is that using "club" in soccer has strong and particular associations with the way leagues are organized in Europe, which inaccurately describes the franchise model used in the US and Canadian leagues generally, and specifically in MLS. In other words, using "club", because of its traditional definition in worldwide soccer, isn't accurate for MLS franchises.

The best thing is probably just to use "teams", unless the passage is specifically about MLS's structure. It is understood by all, and is accurate regardless of the way the league is structured. oknazevad (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is that repeating the same word over and over again is a very boring and tedious form of writing. A little variation goes a long way in keeping a things "fresh" for the mind. But other than this superficial point, the fact is "club" has a variety of accurate connotations that do apply to MLS teams regardless of what traditional European definitions demand. It really does not matter how people in another country use the word. In this country, sports journalists, players and coaches, the league itself (executives, website, articles/press releases etc.), and casual chatter amongst fans refer to them as clubs, franchises, teams, and other names. Certain labels may be necessary depending on what is being described but when making generic references, it is a common and accepted practice in our league and country to use these terms interchangeably. If this is how the real world works, it not our place to say otherwise. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really an important point but in regards to baseball teams, historically many of them were originally called Such-N-Such Baseball Club in the same fashion teams use the FC title. From even a European frame of reference, they were genuine sporting clubs in every sense of the word. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The MLS owns all clubs according to User:JonBroxton. This has been stated on both Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) and Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC when discussion whether the Whitecaps articles should be merged or kept separate. Feel free to take it up with Jon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to, User:JonBroxton is not a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN. MLS operates as a single-entity in that the clubs are owned and operated by the league, while the owners and ownership groups are league shareholders. In other words, while the clubs are owned by the league, the 17 ownership groups representing the current 19 teams own the league. The argument regarding the use of the term "franchise" over "club" is redundant. [7] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the merging or separating of articles. This is just a discussion regarding writing mechanics and word usage. Yes, MLS owner/operators – in the literal definition – collectively owns a share of all teams. However this is unrelated to the point I made above. Please reread. --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that the league doesn't own the teams? In that case, would you care to back that up at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Move request time? or Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Additional proof? If that's the case, then why do recent teams to join have to pay to join the league? In an interview listed at the second link, Carl Valentine is quoted as saying "The MLS operates under a single-entity structure" and later "Each club has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league". http://whitecapsfc.com/news/2011/01/mls-101-making-mls-team --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everything you say is true and I agree with. We are talking about two different issues. Please reread my first two original statements in this discussion. I think that pretty much sums up the point I'm making. --Blackbox77 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is this edit --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm getting at the point you're making. Sorry about that. Are you telling me you believe the investor-operators (i.e. owners) own the franchise but the league (meaning the owners collectively) owns the club? --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For sake of simplicity, I'll say yes. I assumed this thread was started because of that edit. Sorry if I'm mistaken. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That edit did lead me to bring it up on the talk page but that alone really wasn't a big deal. The idea had been brewing in me for sometime from other editors who don't even regularly edit this page constantly changing "franchise" to "club" or vice versa at their whim. Anyway I find the definition I asked about a bit harsh. The distinction between calling something "a franchise" vs "a club" is very blurred in American sports and is almost synonymous even in MLS. If the league itself and journalists use these terms interchangeably in a generic sense, there is no reason why Wikipedia editors cannot as well. And if that's the case – like I said above – it is at the discretion of the original editor which word fits best and not another editor's place to override their decision on personal preference alone. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The key to a club, in European terms at least, is that they have a development program of some sort. Some clubs, such as my favourite FC Bayern Munich even allow memberships from fans. In this example, they also run other sporting teams. As the MLS moves toward this model with this year's announcement of excluding home-grown players from the salary cap, the lines will blur even more. I agree that journalists use the terms interchangeably, which caused a great deal of consternation on my part in relation to the Whitecaps where in the same article they are called a club, a team, and a franchise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But in MLS at least, using the terms club, team, and franchise are all interchangeable and all correct when making casual reference to the team itself. For example, there is nothing wrong with saying "Red Bull (the beverage company) owns the New York club," ""Red Bull owns the New York franchise," and ""Red Bull owns the New York team." They are all correct because we are discussing the NYRBs in a generic sense. Now if the sentence were to specifically refer to the NYRBs development program, using the word "club" might be more appropriate. Likewise if we were to discuss Red Bull buying into MLS, we might be talking about how they run a franchise. But if the sentence is just mentioning the team in general, there is nothing wrong with using these different terms however the editor sees fit. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Europe. This is America. In Europe, club means one thing, here in America it means something a bit different. When you talk about a futbol club in Germany and a futbol club in USA, people know they are organized a bit differently; there is or isn't promotion and relegation, youth development etc, but in the end we are talking about two groups of 11 men who run around on a field and kick a ball. MLS teams can be called clubs based on the precedent set by baseball clubs in North America.Donutcity (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, 6 of 18 teams (that's 33%) have the word Club in their official name. Zero teams have 'team' or 'franchise' in their official name. Zero MLS clubs are based in Europe. Club is an important word to contrast the National Team, of whatever nation. But really, why don't the words in English have their own meanings? Is there a real difference between calling a club a team, a franchise or an organization? We need some teamwork in our debate club to organize an answer before we get disenfranchised.Donutcity (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)