Now that MLS teams LA Galaxy and DC United have finished participating in the first international competition that meant something to all involved, what conclusions can we draw?
1) A GOOD START: Finally American clubs (or more specifically, US soccer officials) have realized that the best way to build long-term support for the sport is to stress the continental as well as the domestic competition. The NASL made a fateful mistake to ignore the rest of the region in the 1970s. Who knows, had the NASL played with FIFA-standard rules and taken CONCACAF seriously, we would be enjoying a professional soccer league with a 30 year history instead of a 2 year one.
2) PROMOTION: How many people not only in the US, but in the rest of CONCACAF even knew this was going on? There were some OK crowds on Friday night (15,000) in RFK but with even a modicum of promotion this could have been much better. Even in soccer-mad Mexico, the quarterfinal games at the Estadio Jalisco in Guadalajara and the Estadio Azul in Mexico city couldn't have been much higher than that. And only 9,000 yesterday for the final was due to either: DCU's elimination in the semi, an 11 AM kickoff, or simply soccer saturation in DC for the past 2 weeks.
3) TV: Many thank to the always-impressive Univision for telecasting 2 of the quarterfinals and the final. But we have got to have better TV -- and other media exposure -- to even begin to move this competition toward something like the Copa Libertadores, not to mention the Champions' League. Of course, any discussion of TV in this hemisphere involves dealing with the hydra-headed monster that is Inter-Forever. Any and all suggestions welcome on this front.
4) STRUCTURE: What's the best way to stage this tournament, and is the month of August the best time to do it? For example, Santos of Torreon (Mexico) complained that after it lost to the Galaxy in the Rose Bowl in the quarter finals that it would have been nice to play a second leg at home to see what would have happened. Yes, it would have been interesting. But how do we go about organizing future competitions? Do we start with a round of 16 with 2 teams each from Mexico and the US, and one from everywhere else and just doing blind draw with a home and away, aggregate goals system? If so, this would look less like the formar of the Champions League and more like the format of the Copa Libertadores or the UEFA Cup. How do we stage the final, one game at a 'neutral site' or home and away in the cites of the two finalists? Do we stretch this over the whole Spring - Fall period and play home and away matches on Wednesdays (Copa Libertadores style), or do we continue to use the more compressed "tournament" format?
5) MLS & the REGION: While nobody should assume that the top MLS teams are automatically the equals of the top Mexican ones, both DCU and the Galaxy gave creditable performances. Let's hope future competitions are as well-contested. But several issues remain. While the Galaxy got off to a strong start, maybe because Cruz Azul may have taken them lightly, the depth of MLS teams needs to be addressed. We simply can't compete with Mexican clubs if we have only a 20 man roster. Welton was out and once Cienfuegos went down, the Galaxy's goose was cooked. Was DCU playing at full strength during this tournament, given all the other games it has to play? Lastly, the refereeing in the championship (and the 3rd place match, as "Screaming Eagle" Matt Mathai mentioned) was kind of dodgy. Why was Cruz Azul awarded a phantom penalty by a Costa Rican referee when the Galaxy were up 2:0? Matt said that 2 DCU goals were disallowed in the 3rd place game. Hopefully I'm just being a bit foolish and paranoid to raise this, but can we assume that MLS teams will be treated fairly in these club competitions? This is CONCACAF we're dealing with, you know.
Back to Chris Allen's "Shots at Goal" Page
Back to Chris Allen's Main Soccer Page