As we all know, the Rothenberg era as the USSF president comes to an end in August. While his reign has been partially controversial ($7,000,000 World Cup bonus, naming the MLS Cup after himself, etc.) he certainly had his head on straight enough to realize what the important things were for the sport of soccer in the US:
In the February 9th issue of Soccer America, (p. 31) both of the candidates published their "platforms" for the USSF.
For those of you who read it, the scary part is that neither of them gave more than a passing reference to MLS and professional soccer, and only Monaco mentioned the World Cup in the context of the 2010 goal.
What both concentrated on were things like youth soccer, participation, communication, coaching, which are all worthwhile goals. However, their inability to stress the importance of the professional game and what it could do for all of their goals was sobering and mysterious.
Now, were either of these guys asked about the pro game?
We don't know.
What we do know is that Soccer America which is the major print medium for communicating with the entire soccer community -- gave both of these guys carte blanche to say whatever they wanted to say. Based on what the two of them chose to emphasize on their own account, pro soccer and the national team didn't seem to rank very highly. This is a cause for concern.
In a discussion on the North American Soccer list, Steve McKibben wondered:
Is it better to have a USSF president that is highly visible in promoting and caring for the pro game, but who is willing to offer said game up as a guinea pig for rule changes, shootouts, asinine scoring tables and the like, or would someone that is more "hands off" to the point of not wanting to tinker with the "beautiful game" be a better option?These are two separate issues. As veteran NASers realize all too well, I've taken Rothenberg and his fellow 'tinkerers' over the coals for trying to "improve" the sport with ill-considered, half-baked foolishness, and I won't do it again here. For those who do, please look at other articles on this site. However, if the the President of the USSF thinks MLS and the senior national team is equivalent in importance to increasing recreational participation, then we're plainly considering the wrong people to head the USSF.
Steve then responded:
And if the latter came to be, would it be in the best interests, or even better than Rothenburg's scenario to let MLS ( a capital venture ) be the primary care takers of the pro game in this country?Sorry, but this ain't the way it works in the world of soccer.
FIFA confers on the national federations the right -- and responsibility -- to oversee the sport in each nation. For that matter, it's the FEDERATION not the leagues that are responsible for such issues as referee assignments and resolving disputes among contending parties. In many respects, we have been different than most soccer-playing nations in that the pyramid has been reversed. Specifically, we've had millions of players at the youth and recreational level, and -- until now -- a woeful experience with the pro game. In most other countries, the importance of the professional game sets a tone and creates a culture within which the game flourishes. Virtually every serious soccer-playing nation knows how important that a professional league and the national team are to the entire enterprise.
If we were to 'let the pro leagues take care of the pro game' we'd probably have such things as competing leagues, different rules in different leagues, and an inability to conform to standardized practice on such fundamental issues that soccer might evolve into a different sport here. Why for example doesn't the NBA play with a different set of rules than does FIBA, or the colleges, or high schools. Why does the NHL have a different set of rules than does international soccer?
The basic answer to these questions is that the major pro leagues in those sports have acted in a vacuum of a weak -- or non-existent -- governing national federation.
If our two candidates to replace Rothenberg don't realize how power and influence in the world of international soccer need to be organized within a national federation, then we're looking at the wrong two people to consider for this crucial position. The only evidence we have for their goals and vision is what the two of them published in their own forum when they could have chosen anything they wanted to say
In short, are either of these two guys competent to be at the helm of the USSF in an era when the primary concerns of these two gentlemen -- concerns that seem more appropriate to USSF statements made by the Werner Frickers of the world in the late 1980s -- seem so out of touch with that the USSF needs to do now?
Inquiring minds want to know....