2009 Boys

[Guest]

While I won't defend the MLS or the single entity model, it's not "socialist".

Do you know what the most socialist sports league in the country is? The NFL. A loser-picks-first draft with no lottery like the NBA to discourage tanking. Parity scheduling (if you win more one season, you get a rougher schedule the next) that penalizes teams for winning.

And what is the most socialist top-league pro sports team in the country? The Green Bay freaking Packers. Community owned. They could play in the Bundesliga if they didn't use pointy balls.

Of course, the NFL is only "socialist" at the inter-team competition level; it's by far the most ruthless league to its players, and the one that has been most able to make the players union management's beyotch.

But anyway, 1982 called and wants its red-baiting politics back.

[Guest]

Please tell us what a single entity model resembles to you, if ypu feel it isn't socialist in nature, what is it and why. With examples of course. In order to have a disagreement please consider backing up your point of view Maybe with illustrations illustrations or even examples.

It's alright when people agree to disagree.

Now you have the opportunity to educate us about its odd structure and what it really resembles to you and why.

Take as much time As you need, of course.

From dictionary.com - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

I don't think socialist is the right adjective. Socialist would mean the MLS is community or worker owned.
The public or community or players or workers don't own MLS and they don't reap the profits.

It's a different structure than the NFL but that doesn't mean that it's socialist.

I think collective would be a better adjective.
If a bunch of capitalists bought into a collective to make more money, I wouldn't call them socialists.

So with the MLS, a bunch of rich people bought shares in the MLS, each share is represented by one team. The owner of each share gets to make some decisions individually for their team. But many decisions are made by the league as a whole. Most revenue is shared.
It might be collective, but not socialist.

I think the NFL and MLB also have some revenue sharing...does that make them socialists?

[Guest]

I will not waste your time on mine.

Credit to the author

https://www.conductdetrimental.com/p...own-a-red-card

The word socialist does not seem to appear in the opinion.
Did I miss something?

Sure, this guy seems to think the single entity structure is bad, but it's one guys opinion.
All these investor operators must be idiots for putting their money in.

I agree with him.
I think the main issue the author has with the MLS is that is reduces league competitiveness and is a quasi-monopoly. (Capitalists love monopolies, that's why they buy in.)

"Thus, because of this structure, the league is allowed to control costs, salaries, league membership, and all aspects of the sport in the country while skirting anti-trust laws."
So MLS is a single entity so it can legally operate as a monopoly and milk the sport for all it's worth.
It would seem that rather than being socialist, the single entity structure is capitalist.

It seems that the author would like to increase investment in lower soccer leagues. (Some sort of wealth redistribution?)

I think we are on the same side as far as the MLS is concerned.

I just think you're using the word socialist wrong.

[Guest]

I think collective would be a better adjective.
If a bunch of capitalists bought into a collective to make more money, I wouldn't call them socialists.

when capitalists come together as a collective to make more money, by controlling the market, that's called a cartel. (which iirc, from social studies, cartels are illegal in the US.)

[Guest]

when capitalists come together as a collective to make more money, by controlling the market, that's called a cartel. (which iirc, from social studies, cartels are illegal in the US.)

Which is why they structured MLS as a single entity, to be a legal cartel.

[Guest]

Which is why they structured MLS as a single entity, to be a legal cartel.

Given there are other leagues though, USL, USL2, etc…, hard to argue they completely control the “soccer market” in the US. MLS is “a” league, not the “only” league.

[Guest]

Given there are other leagues though, USL, USL2, etc…, hard to argue they completely control the “soccer market” in the US. MLS is “a” league, not the “only” league.

No one is arguing that they completely control the "soccer market".

[Guest]

No one is arguing that they completely control the "soccer market".

i was just pointing out the correct term, cartel.

please carry on

[Guest]

3-2 OPFC over ADF

clasic Veektor - nuff said

[Guest]

UPDX is good, ADF is strong, Westside is not dominant anymore. OPFC looks like strongest contender for state cup.

[Guest]

UPDX @ 2009 are not good. They are 0-2-1 with a -5 goal differential. They may win against the absolute worst team in the league- Washington Timbers, but otherwise will likely lose or tie the rest of their games.

UPDX vs WPFC 0-2
UPDX vs XF2 1-1
UPDX vs EFC 1-4

These aren't great results.

[Guest]

UPDX’s goalie will keep them in a lot of games and from being blown out by some of the better teams. He’s excellent.

[Guest]

UPDX like OPFC has acquired a lot of new talent. Hopefully won't take long for the players to get to know each other, develop good chemistry and compete at the highest level with the better ECNL teams. Definitely have the potential especially now with 9 discover kids.

[Guest]

I have watched both play and OPFC is significantly better. Both have good players though.

[Guest]

I guess we will see how it goes on Saturday. Good matchup between the two teams