Ben Knight - Canadian Pro Soccer Update

[Winnipeg Fury]

Canadian pro soccer update

A new A-League season is kicking off. Is a new Canadian league on the horizon?

A new A-League soccer season is kicking off across North America. This humble loop, officially considered the second division of pro soccer in the United States (though far below that level by any fair international footballing standard) shrunk in the off-season, but still comprises sixteen teams, from Atlantic to Pacific, from Canada way down to Puerto Rico.

This year, five of those teams are Canadian. That's the highest ratio ever. More importantly, if they all fly, that strange, elusive dream of an actual professional soccer league in Canada may come several steps closer to coming true.

So where are we, and where are we going?

Three long-serving sides, the Vancouver Whitecaps, Montreal Impact and Toronto Lynx, are back. The Calgary Storm, however, fatally fell victim to the full rack of symptoms that have chronically wracked the pro game in this country: Bad ownership, few fans, nasty geography, no money. But the wreckage has been swept away, and an entirely new team, the Mustangs, stands ready - we hope - to do better.

Hopes are running high in Edmonton, as well, where the expansion Aviators appear to be the model of an ambitious, sufficiently solid locally owned sporting business venture. Ambition can be a mixed blessing, though. It can force fledgling teams to over-commit themselves in dire, low-percentage directions. It is with concern, therefore, that we report both Alberta teams will be playing the majority of their home games in giant CFL park, McMahon Stadium in Calgary and Canada's Wembley, Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton.

That's a heck of a lot of stadium for a league that rarely draws five-figure crowds. Montreal turned a lot of heads last season when their home crowds swelled to the staggering level of seven-thousand-plus. A crowd that small in a CFL stadium - even a small one - would be lost.

So it may be an act of blinkered optimism to assume that all five Canadian teams will make it though the 2004 A-League season alive.

For present purposes, though, let us take the optimistic path. Suppose they all do just fine. Heck, maybe one of them brings back a league title.

Near as I can tell, that leaves us one city away from a strong all-Canadian A-League division. And that, I submit, would be as close to a Canadian professional soccer league as we are likely to see in our remaining lifetimes. Yes, they'd still be playing the Syracuse Salty Dogs and Milwaukee Wave United more than most of us would probably like to see, but if they all played each other home-and-home, that would be ten all-Canadian matches per team per season. Sneak a few of those onto national television - expensive, because they'll have to pay for it themselves - and maybe we've got something.

Certainly, this kind of incremental growth has advantages over bigger, grander recent plans, which tried to create an eight-team Canadian United Soccer League out of almost nothing. Too much, too soon. The less said, the better.

But now, we could be at five. It seems odd to suggest that the future of the pro game here rides on the future fortunes of two expansion teams who may easily spend their summer knocking around the basement of the standings in giant, empty stadiums. But isn't that about par for the course for this dream? Really, there's nothing else to do but hope they pull it off.

Before they do, however, the ominous shadow of the MLS may fall across the field. The Toronto stadium story has been very quiet lately, but rising rumblings from behind the scenes suggest that if the Argos build it, Major League Soccer will come. Vancouver, with a big-money Internet sugar daddy running the Whitecaps, could easily be there as well by the end of the decade.

Would the Whitecaps just move up a level? Very probably. Could the Toronto Lynx survive the competition? Almost certainly not. That makes the Canadian Division effort absolutely crucial. If the MLS does come north, we need to get this thing established first. That could inspire new local teams in, for example, Hamilton and Victoria. They could go a long way to fill the holes left by Toronto and Vancouver.

We are dreaming in technicolour, of course. But ever since the CSL collapsed, this entire story has been lolling around in la-la land.

I don't think we need worry that the MLS will steal away all the best players. Europe is already doing that. A Canadian pro soccer league will probably never feature our best players in the prime of their careers. We're talking second and third tier here, which won't make solving the television contract problem easier.

All we can hope for, right now, is good and solid little steps. Here's to hoping the Calgary Mustangs and Edmonton Aviators are exactly that.

If not, it will be a long, long time before we ever see a men's professional Canadian soccer league - or division - again.

[argh1]

The writer , has hit alot of good points .

My , personal problem with pro soccer in Canada , is I want all the teams to succeed . Although , I may follow mainly the IMPACT , I , don't have a love , hate relationship with any team .

From where I live , following any pro sport team in the world is possible , as I will probably never have a local pro team to support.

A team in Vancouver is as far away from me as a team in London , U.K.

Montreal , is as close as Boston .

Untill, I believe , I get over wanting any Canadian pro soccer team to succeed. Instead of rooting hard for this team , and wanting that team to lose . I,don't know how to deal with the A-LEAGUE .

I'm not sure I've explained this properly , it's not that I don't value the league , it's more that I don't have a loyalty or a despise for any team . Which , I seem to need to follow a game .

Does any-one know what I mean ?

[Grizzly]

It seems that even in the articles which I generally agree with Ben includes a few pretty weak points.

quote: This humble loop, officially considered the second division of pro soccer in the United States (though far below that level by any fair international footballing standard)

Ben, here is a newsflash: there is soccer played outside of the UK and those other countries include more than just Germany, Spain, France and Italy. Even just considering Europe the A-league level is probably comparable to the second league level in a majority of countries and comparable to the first league level in one quarter of the European countries. When thinking of a "fair international footballing standard" would that not include the 2nd divisions of countries like Scotland, Ireland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Chile, Tunesia, China etc. While the A-league does not compare well to the 2nd divisions of the top 10 major footballing nations it certainly is not a below the second league level of the typical footballing nation.

quote: Near as I can tell, that leaves us one city away from a strong all-Canadian A-League division. And that, I submit, would be as close to a Canadian professional soccer league as we are likely to see in our remaining lifetimes.

Man are you ever pessimistic Ben. I would agree with this statement if you said 5 to 10 years but in our lifetime? Maybe you are planning to die in the near future, but I doubt you have any idea what the state of Canadian soccer will be in the next 50 years.

[Michael Crampton]

I have to agree with Grizzly on both points. I can't rate the A-League relative to the Scottish Div.1 in terms of quality on the pitch but has anyone ever taken the time to actually look at attendences? The A-League doesn't look so bad. The problem here is geogrpahy and a lack of history... that's what makes the Scottish Football League successful. Ironically that's why I actually like that the CPSL is essentially a regional league. As far as I can see regional is the way to go until a solid base of successful clubs can develop. If some clubs can do that in the A-League well in to them but right now I find it hard to imagine a national league springing up with teams in all the major Canadian markets being sustainable and successful. But...

Grizzly is absolutely right about Ben's longterm pessimism. No one can claim to have any idea what the national (or global) soccer scene is going to look like in 50 years. 50 years ago the European Cup was a brand new idea (which the English ignored), the World Cup was on TV for the first time, the NHL had six teams and the NFL was essentially semi-pro - hardly comparable to 2004. With the advances in genetic technology, bionics (yes, I'm serious - bionics), and virtual reality (a stupid term yes but more an more the future) who nows if sport will even be the same in 50 years.

Mike.

[Michael Crampton]

Actually, I just re-read my post and noted that the 54 World Cup wasn't even on TV - it was the one Brazil hosted and the English only got 1 picture - 1 picture! - from their loss to the US. I was thinking of the '58 World Cup (Switzerland) which I believe was the first with any TV coverage (though even then the majority still listened on radio).

Mike.

[Gian-Luca]

Actually England lost to the US in 1950, rather than 1954, but your point is well made.

[DarnCherry]

quote:That's a heck of a lot of stadium for a league that rarely draws five-figure crowds.

What a load of horse poo.

There thats better. Must be heat stroke or something.

[Jarrek]

quote:That's a heck of a lot of stadium for a league that rarely draws five-figure crowds.

I think that's a correct statement. Aside from Rochester all teams draw below 10,000.

[beachesl]

quote:Originally posted by BHTC Mike

Actually, I just re-read my post and noted that the 54 World Cup wasn't even on TV - it was the one Brazil hosted and the English only got 1 picture - 1 picture! - from their loss to the US. I was thinking of the '58 World Cup (Switzerland) which I believe was the first with any TV coverage (though even then the majority still listened on radio).

Mike.

Brazil's World Cup was in 1950, Switzerland in 1954, Sweden in 1958.

I know there was no live radio coverage to Europe or North America in 1950. The first the English learnt of the result were from wire services reports. They assumed the USA1-Eng1 result was a typo, and the papers reported the result initially as England 10-US 0!

Switzerlad 1954 was the first live radio broadcast in Europe. The English were no longer shocked by defeat, having been persuaded they were not invincible by the shellacking Hungary gave them at Wembly the year before.

Sweden did have live television in '58, but it was restricted to only some limited countries in Europe, I don't know which.

I don't think Chile in 1962 was televised.

England '66 was televised extensively throughout Europe. Some matches broadcast in the US by some ABC affiliates, I believe, in black and white due to the limitations in Britain. In most of Canada, it was only available by closed circuit theatres or by attenae from ABC near the US border.

Mexico '70 was the first broadcast in colour, and was the first worldwide coverage (except for most of the third world in Asia and Africa). This revoloutionized the game.

By Mexico 1986, almost all the world could readily get the World Cup, which is why Maradona has by far been the favourite player of the world in terms of sheer numbers of fans. I think that this was the second time it was broadcast live in Canada on regular television, the first being Spain '82, I think. Of course, my old memory could be faining me.

[Michael Crampton]

Beachesl,

Don't worry about your memory as apparently mine has been completely shot to pieces. Thank-you everyone for correcting my mistakes. Brazil '50, Switzerland '54, and Sweden '58 (which I really don't know how I screwed up being the World Cup of Pele as a teenager).

Mike.

[DarnCherry]

quote:Originally posted by Jarrek

I think that's a correct statement. Aside from Rochester all teams draw below 10,000.

Oops I was thinking 4 digits!

Well either way, who does draw over 5 digits each game? Even MLS doesn't seem to always do that.

[Rocket Robin]

I know there was no live radio coverage to Europe or North America in 1950. The first the English learnt of the result were from wire services reports. They assumed the USA1-Eng1 result was a typo, and the papers reported the result initially as England 10-US 0!

.................................................................................

Now you've made the typo as the Americans WON the game 1-0 in Belo Horizonte.

Wasn't Hollywood working on a movie about this game over a year ago?

[beachesl]

quote:Originally posted by Rocket Robin

I know there was no live radio coverage to Europe or North America in 1950. The first the English learnt of the result were from wire services reports. They assumed the USA1-Eng1 result was a typo, and the papers reported the result initially as England 10-US 0!

.................................................................................

Now you've made the typo as the Americans WON the game 1-0 in Belo Horizonte.

Wasn't Hollywood working on a movie about this game over a year ago?

My bad.[:I]

Yes, "The Game of Their Lives" (not to be confused with the British TV documentary of the same name in 2003 that followed the some members of the brilliant 1966 North Korean World Cup team on their return to Middlesborough) made and directed in St. Louis by the same director who did Rudi and Hoosiers, has already been shot and will be released sometime this summer. I just hope we don't get the Rudi cheer for Jean-Pierre Gaejtens or the coach getting the team to measure the sidelines of the soccer pitch saying afterwards "same as home".

http://www.redeemable.com/game_of_their_lives.htm

Actually, the 1930 USA team was the most successful, making it to the semi-finals in the WC held in Uruguay, but it is probably less fascinating because the team was made up mainly of transplanted stodgy Scots living in Falls River, Massachusetts, rather than the rainbow team of 1950. Also, the fact that Brazil has more cachet than Uruguay and the desire to attract English theatregoers probably clinched the decision.

[Gian-Luca]

I can recall watching the 1978 World Cup live on television in Toronto(can't remember what station), though I think the 1982 tournament was the first to be shown extensively in Canada (the matches I saw in 1978 were the last few of the tournament).

[beachesl]

Maybe it was ABC. Toronto was a sea of attennas then, unless cable had come in by then.

I was in France that summer, bicycle touring. Often, watching in the

bars, there would be parades of leftists shouting through the doors asking us to follow a boycot of the broadcasts to protest the regime in Argentina. The hostels in France, where I would usually stay, had an official policy of not allowing the matches on tv, and there was a blcck poster up in every hostel saying watching the World Cup was contributing to the deaths and torture. Obviously, I ignored them, unless I was trying to chat up an anarchist chick.

[Moosehead]

too negative, the fact is a canadian pro league could survive with good owners and fans and the media for that matter that could accept to love small. Not to expect english premier league in canada over night. The love of competition and chearing on your local team should be the goal. That is why the establishment of a National Open Cup should be a priority which should foster some of these goals.

[Michael Crampton]

I've had an Open Cup scheme brewing in my head since last December that I've hesitated to post since I know how pedantic discussions of "hail mary" plans for reorganizing Canadian soccer can be. I do however agree with the general premise that it would be an excellent first step in establishing some proper domestic competition in this country. What it'll really take is strong leadership from the CSA and sponsorship dollars (CIBC?)... and we've all seen what relying on the CSA brings you.

Mike.

[Impact supporter]

BHTC Mike:

I for one am interested in your scheme. Please email me your proposal.

I have my own scheme for a Canada Cup which would be based on regional derbies.

On the amateur side, the provincial league and provincial cup champions would play off against each other to determine a provincial winner. after there would be interprovincial competition to determine regional winners which are:

Atlantic - the four maritme province

Central - Quebec vs Ontario

Prairies - Manitoba vs Saskatchewan

Pacific - Alberta vs. British Columbia

On the Pro side, there would be regional playdowns

to determine 4 winners.

BC - Vancouver, Victoria, Fraser Valley and okanagon

Praries - Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Northern Ontario

Central - London, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City

Atlantic - New Brunswick , PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland

Quarterfinals:

Pacific pro champion vs Pacific amateur champion

Praries prochampion vs Praries amateur champion

Central pro champion vs Central amateur champion

Atlantic pro champion vs Atlantic amateur champion

Semi finals:

Pacific Champion vs Praries champion

Central champion vs Atlantic champion

Finals:

East champion vs West Champion

Winners advances to play in the CONCACAF Champions Cup.

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by Impact supporter

Atlantic - the four maritme province

Atlantic - New Brunswick , PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland

Okay, okay.....

Pedanic point . But , there are 3 Maritime provinces and 4 Atlantic provinces .

I realize only us "Down Easterners" know the difference . But c'mon .

Before 1949 there were the Maritimes , after 1949 Atlantic Provinces.

But, then again , I still refer to S. Ontario as Upper Canada

Other , than that , I wish we could just stop talking 'bout a national cup & get on with one.

I can only guess , that there is no public demand for one , or the "Cup" would have been a fixture on the landscape by now .

[Winnipeg Fury]

Details aside, I agree with the overall sentiment of Ben's article. With 5 clubs, Canada is establishing a base from which to launch our own domestic league.

We aren't there yet, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

In the meantime, we need a national Cup for our professional clubs. This has to happen sooner than later, and Andy Sharpe should stake his position on it.

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

Obviously, I ignored them, unless I was trying to chat up an anarchist chick.

So? Any luck? []

[beachesl]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

So? Any luck? []

I'm a gentleman. I've never been one to "throw over the bonds of

capitalistic sexual repression" and tell.

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

I'm a gentleman. I've never been one to "throw over the bonds of

capitalistic sexual repression" and tell.

North Boys...it's early in the month, but here's my pick for "Post of the month!" Hahahahahaha...

[martin lechelt]

I agree with the Open Cup first sentiment. With five A-League clubs and scores of effectively third division clubs in Canada, we have the makings of a very interesting Open Cup competition.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

The writer , has hit alot of good points .

My , personal problem with pro soccer in Canada , is I want all the teams to succeed . Although , I may follow mainly the IMPACT , I , don't have a love , hate relationship with any team .

From where I live , following any pro sport team in the world is possible , as I will probably never have a local pro team to support.

A team in Vancouver is as far away from me as a team in London , U.K.

Montreal , is as close as Boston .

Untill, I believe , I get over wanting any Canadian pro soccer team to succeed. Instead of rooting hard for this team , and wanting that team to lose . I,don't know how to deal with the A-LEAGUE .

I'm not sure I've explained this properly , it's not that I don't value the league , it's more that I don't have a loyalty or a despise for any team . Which , I seem to need to follow a game .

Does any-one know what I mean ?

I'll bet that most people here share these sentiments, myself included. That would explain why there are so few discussions pertaining to a-league soccer on this board in relation to MNT's. Yet, there are so many more club games, events and news than there are for MNT's. In most countries, I would image that club soccer dominates news and discussion for most of the year.

Lack of Star-appeal is one reason IMO but,I think television is the biggest reason. There is no club soccer on any national networks and I'll exclude FSW since very few have that service. Consequently there is very little to discuss, compare, refute and dispute.

Compared to the old CSL, the calibre of the A-league was likely better but, having that weekly game on TSN every sunday night does alot to alliviate the problem that your alluding to.