How does the Big Red Machine do it?

[Robert]

Larger in land mass and with a less affluent population, the Russians are capable of running a national soccer league. Is Canada really capable of successfully operating a soccer league independent of U.S. involvement? Or is Canada is more akin to the minnows of the soccer world like Monaco or Wales, always in need of a bigger brother? I don't understand why if Iceland, Luxembourgh, Belize and even the U.S. can, that we can't.

[juaninho]

Larger population, less competiton from other pro sports could be two reasons why a Russian league can float.

[Daniel]

Yeah, let's omit that 180 million figure, a long tradition of soccer and the fact that most teams are concentrated West of the Ural mountains.

This is a bit like saying "Germany can't get a decent american-rules football league off the ground, while Canada, with its smaller population and greater landmass, can."

We need to stop posting absurd stuff.

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Yeah, let's omit that 180 million figure, a long tradition of soccer and the fact that most teams are concentrated West of the Ural mountains.

This is a bit like saying "Germany can't get a decent american-rules football league off the ground, while Canada, with its smaller population and greater landmass, can."

We need to stop posting absurd stuff.

At the risk of agreeing with you it is kinda like asking why Bangladesh can be so strong in criket and why we're not in their league. The history of soccer in Russia is deep.

My opinion only but for some reason we're trying to force the development of pro soccer here and see every failed team as a set back rather than as a positive that atleast there is interest enough to keep trying . The evolution will continue but it won't happen overnight . Patience I'm afraid is what's needed and that is a hard commodity to find.To sound like a broken record the market place will decide when is the right time for a league to survive and it's hard to rush consumer interest. In the mean time all we can do is support whatever clubs are available to us at our local levels , pro , semi-pro, senior whatever . Because without that support the evolution may stall.

[juaninho]

Can a person make laissez-faire economics friendly arguments, that the market will determine viability, on something that isn't a consumer commodity or good? Market decisions are based on preferences for commoditties AND the determination of price for the commodity. Drone A will choose product B at price X, but not choose the same product at a much higher price, price Z. If everyone agrees with Drone A, then the market has decided that product B should stick to price X. There you have it, free market decision.

But I think with regards to entertainment and pro sports, the market can be manufactured. Look at the advertising for pro sports in various media. Those with the most bucks create demand, manufacture it so as to maximise profitability. But then the question remains to be begged, does throwing tremendous amounts of money at soccer change the demand? This is hard to answer. But i think one of the arguments against soccer in Canada is the general North American mentality (excluding Mexico) that in pro sports or just about anything, there always must, i mean MUST be a victor. Hockey has tried to make changes to eliminate ties (4 on 4 play in OT), NA Football rarely has them, Baseball will play for 29 innings until Lefty Magee of the bullpen serves up a ball that even a tired 1st baseman can hit for an RBI. Ours is a culture of right and wrong, victor and loser. The fact that about 33 per cent of soccer/football games end in ties would probably leave the average north american fan unsatisfied. North American fans cater more towards a results orientation rather then the satisfaction/appreciation of performance.

edit: added laissez-faire

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by juaninho

Can a person make laissez-faire economics friendly arguments, that the market will determine viability, on something that isn't a consumer commodity or good? Market decisions are based on preferences for commoditties AND the determination of price for the commodity. Drone A will choose product B at price X, but not choose the same product at a much higher price, price Z. If everyone agrees with Drone A, then the market has decided that product B should stick to price X. There you have it, free market decision.

But I think with regards to entertainment and pro sports, the market can be manufactured. Look at the advertising for pro sports in various media. Those with the most bucks create demand, manufacture it so as to maximise profitability. But then the question remains to be begged, does throwing tremendous amounts of money at soccer change the demand? This is hard to answer. But i think one of the arguments against soccer in Canada is the general North American mentality (excluding Mexico) that in pro sports or just about anything, there always must, i mean MUST be a victor. Hockey has tried to make changes to eliminate ties (4 on 4 play in OT), NA Football rarely has them, Baseball will play for 29 innings until Lefty Magee of the bullpen serves up a ball that even a tired 1st baseman can hit for an RBI. Ours is a culture of right and wrong, victor and loser. The fact that about 33 per cent of soccer/football games end in ties would probably leave the average north american fan unsatisfied. North American fans cater more towards a results orientation rather then the satisfaction/appreciation of performance.

edit: added laissez-faire

My point is ......did the CFL evolve from the Canadian Rugby (?) or was it artifically introduced. Did the CHL evolve from member clubs or did the CAHA say let's do it .

Was the NHL the one's to start or did the clubs do it.

Name one Canadian pro league that didn't evolve from the clubs as opposed to a league starting out of the blue without allready having fan interest .

When you go to work on Mondays how many of your co-workers want to discuss the weekends soccer play or NFL/CFL or your local CHL results .

My point is we can't force people to give up their hard earned loonies to pay to see something if they already don't have an interest in it.

Edit :

About 10 years ago when I'd pick up my kids at the High School football or hockey games I'd fight through crowds to find them .

After a soccer game they could could find me easily.

All I'm questioning is , no matter how much we soccer fans want pro soccer to succeed is there enough of a fan base to make it so at this time or do we have to wait ( as I believe it will one day be ) . How can we force Joe Average Canadian to pay his loonies to go watch pro soccer . All I'm advocating is support the local teams in your area untill such a time as pro soccer is demanded. Because I don't believe you can force it.

[juaninho]

I see your point argh1, but then why ask how other countries can have successful leagues, what makes them successful, and yet reply that a laissez-faire - the market decides - attitude is the best one to adopt with regards to pro soccer in Canada? I realise that you are frustrated just as much as all of us are that more people aren't interested in soccer. You, just like everyone else, want an answer to the question of how to increase interest in soccer, both pro and national team alike in Canada.

I think one way interest can be altered is through the success of the national team. If the National team does well and can sustain a level of excellence, then people will develop an interest. Couple this with positive media exposure, then interest will grow and a desire for pro soccer will ensue. Create a winning tradition, and others will want to be apart of that tradition. Take for example the Toronto Maple Leafs. Fans follow the team like lemmings because of their storied tradition of winning something like 12 stanley cups, not because of their current 'tradition' of failure since 1967. Past success breeds the expectation of future success - rationally or irrationally so. And if people expect future success to come, they will wait for it and support a team's efforts. Hence, if the Men's National team does start to be successful and sustain that success, then interest will result because a tradition will have started. People will want to get a hold of, be apart of, and sustain that tradition through the support of pro teams. I think the reason why the MLS is growing is because the U.S. team has done what Canada's has not, provide winning results.

We both want the same thing argh1, i just think it can be attained pro-actively through success with the Men's National Team. But, if the question then remains how long does it take to establish a tradition, that is a question better asked of social anthropologists then me.

[Grizzly]

Given the similarities in the size, climate and hockey tradition of Russia and Canada there are probably more things to be learned from the Russian leagues than say those of England, a very highly populated soccer obsessed nation in a very small geographical area. That being said there are some key differences. Soccer has a long tradition in Russia and the big teams can trace their history back to the same years that the big English, German and other European teams were being formed. The Soviet Union had very effective player development programs and the Soviet and Russian national teams have always been reasonably strong. They have consistently qualified for the WC and Euro tournaments and have done decently although not being a top power. They won the Euro once and were finalists 3 other times (when Italy won at home in 68 the Soviet Union lost on a coin toss to them in the semi-final after a 0-0 tie - shades of Gold Cup). In the World cup they were a semi-finalist in 66 and usually got at least past the 1st round. They also won two Olympic gold medals. The Russian team hasn't been quite as good but has qualified for each tournament 2 out of 3 times although things are looking bad for 2006.

Russia is 1.7 times larger than Canada but the top football league (Championship) is confined to a smaller area of European Russia, about the size of Ontario and Quebec. 9 teams (the Moscow 6, Zenit, Shinnik and Saturn) are located in an area about the size of the Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa triangle with a population close to that of all of Canada. On the other hand this shouldn't be given too much emphasis as the 2nd tier 1st division is also national and includes teams as far away as Vladivostok which is probably closer to Vancouver than Moscow. The second tier thus has significant travel costs and logistical problems. Ticket prices are low but this income source still compares favourably to Canada. 20 000 tickets at $4-5 average price outside of Moscow and Petersburg and 10 000 tickets at $8-10 in Moscow is still better than 2000 tickets at $10-15 in Canada. It is only a low level of gate revenue when compared with other European countries. There is a lot of sponsorship revenue which allows the large clubs to compete with other top European teams. There is a lot of money in Russia, particularly in oil, that seems to flow a lot more freely to soccer teams than to regular people. Also the Championships biggest sponsor, Baltika beer, gets far more out of their money in a country of 180 million with many soccer fans than CIBC does in a country of 32 million most of whom don't care about Canadian soccer. Thus, sponsoring the league or a team is much more prestigious and valuable from a business perspective. There is, however, a lot of sport competition in Russia although soccer is probably number 1. Hockey is a very close second and in many areas more popular than soccer. They have strong basketball and handball leagues and many sports that receive far greater support than in Canada such as gymnastics and volleyball (volleyball fans show up in the thousands with scarfs just like in soccer).

As far as obtaining knowledge in how to run a league it would probably be more useful to study how the 1st division is run than the Championship due to the travel and crowd sizes that would be within the attainable for a Canadian league that was well run. It is looking more and more like Jazic will be playing in this league next year if his contract doesn't have a relegation clause or he is not transferred. The playing level is still quite competitive, comparable to the top Scandanavian leagues or MLS.

I remember about two years ago that Canada signed some sort of sports cooperation agreement with Russia that was to have a significant soccer component. Since the initial announcement I haven't heard anything more about the arrangement. Has anyone else? I think Russia would have some very good coaches available at low prices. The top professional coaches are expensive like everywhere else but they have a large number of strong development coaches. Niendorf for example came over shortly after German reunification when things were bad at his previously strong East German club Dynamo Berlin where he was a top youth coach. I would think there would be a fair number of excellent coaches similar to Niendorf who might be available for full time jobs or exchange programs.

[canso]

There is no comparison, no parallels, nor is there much point in trying to find one. Canada would have to have an established domestic league with a long history and tradition of being a cultural fixture and source of pride for the general public who fill up 100,000 capacity stadiums for the big derby matches and who have billionaire investors who buy up talent from around the globe. (Wouldn't that be great though, a converted Skydome with lush natural grass filled to capacity for the big game between Montreal who have just splashed out more of Frank Stronach's cash on Rivaldo and the hometown side who have just signed local heroes Hutch and Hume to longterm contracts!)

We have more in common with New Zealand than anywhere else, as they have just the one franchise planning to play in big brother Australia's league and one largely forgettable World Cup appearance and sports fans who care about one sport only and everything else is an afterthought.

[Grizzly]

What would we possibly gain from studying New Zealand which is an even less successful soccer nation than we are and in no way comparable in size, climate, etc.? It is exactly the successful countries that we should be studying, particularly those that have some similar conditions to Canada. If you want to build a tradition why would you study a country that has no tradition instead of one that does? We should study both those countries that have a long tradition and those that have made recent strides in establishing one. I think the leagues that would be most relevant to us are the US, Mexico, other major CONCACAF leagues, Russia, Scandanavia and Australia. The only derby matches in the Russian Championship are in Moscow where the overabundance of teams and at least one derby per week has led to lack of interest and a typical attendance of 10 to 20 000. The only Russian billionaire investing in soccer has like Stronach chosen to invest in another country's team than that where he made his money. Russian sponsors tend to be large oil companies whose logos are displayed on the jersey. Canada also has no lack of large oil companies although they are certainly at present not interested in investing in soccer. I don't see much logic in your post. If Canada already had

quote:an established domestic league with a long history and tradition of being a cultural fixture and source of pride for the general public who fill up 100,000 capacity stadiums for the big derby matches and who have billionaire investors who buy up talent from around the globe.

we wouldn't need to look at anybody else's model.

[canso]

I was addressing Robert, the guy who started this thread, in terms of who Canada could be best compared to internationally. You're right Grizzly, we have absolutely nothing to learn from New Zealand; except how to develop a stronger national program by having a single franchise in our big, noisy, arrogant neighbour's Top division while our own modest domestic circuit continues to act as a Tier II feeder league, and how to generate public interest and attract corporate sponsors to a sport that ranks pretty low on national consciousness. Other than that, not much in common...although didn't New Zealand have a terrible WCQ campaign and fail to even make it to the anticipated showdown with Australia after losing to a country they were expected to beat easily, due in large part to players based overseas suffering severe jet lag when returning to play for their country? Although they did fire their coach afterwards for failing to meet stated objectives, so I guess there isn't much comparison there either!

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by juaninho

I see your point argh1, but then why ask how other countries can have successful leagues, what makes them successful, and yet reply that a laissez-faire - the market decides - attitude is the best one to adopt with regards to pro soccer in Canada? I realise that you are frustrated just as much as all of us are that more people aren't interested in soccer. You, just like everyone else, want an answer to the question of how to increase interest in soccer, both pro and national team alike in Canada............

We both want the same thing argh1, i just think it can be attained pro-actively through success with the Men's National Team. But, if the question then remains how long does it take to establish a tradition, that is a question better asked of social anthropologists then me.

Yes you are right I'd love to see a pro league in Canada and maybe my answers are too simplistic but I'm unsure of how to create mass interest in soccer in this country . Success at the international level would help . But would that have any sustained affect on public demand for pro soccer or just as an one time tourney event . Even the top teams in the world don't have success all the time .

I know I'm sounding negative and I don't mean to be , but if there's a formula to manufacture long lasting demand for pro soccer in Canada I'd like to hear it!

I know I don't have billions of loonies to help. All I can do is support my local clubs and hope one day instead of a hundred or less showing up that thousands will take an interest and I'm not sure how you can artifically create genuine interest in a sport.

I realize I live in But Crack No-Where and will never see a pro team in my back-yard so maybe my views are tainted .

The fact that people in places like Edmonton and Calgary keep trying is good enough for me , to show that pro soccer is still on the evolutionary path .

As the old saying goes just because you fail doesn't mean you're a failure. Keep trying and one day after many failed teams we will get it right.

In the mean time keep supporting your local clubs .

[G-Man]

Norway.

Same weather. Same small outdoor window. But we suffer from a land size problem which they don't.

Small league. 1000 per game. A few big clubs. Sell your best players to bigger clubs elsewhere. Have the majority of your national team players playing outside of your domestic league.

We need more full size indoor facilities. Where players can train and play on full size feilds and not tennis courts.

[G-Man]

Norway.

Same weather. Same small outdoor window. But we suffer from a land size problem which they don't.

Small league. 1000 per game. A few big clubs. Sell your best players to bigger clubs elsewhere. Have the majority of your national team players playing outside of your domestic league.

We need more full size indoor facilities. Where players can train and play on full size feilds and not tennis courts.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

We need to stop posting absurd stuff.

Agreed. The Forum has gotten quite disapointing in the past several months. I can't understand why people can't see that a league by itself is pointless. Its the competiveness of the play, strenght of the clubs and degree of professionalism that count. So what if Luxemburg, Malta etc have a league, if the calibre and professionalism is no better than the CPSL or the LSEQ then they are no better off than canada.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

We need to stop posting absurd stuff.

Agreed. The Forum has gotten quite disapointing in the past several months. I can't understand why people can't see that a league by itself is pointless. Its the competiveness of the play, strenght of the clubs and degree of professionalism that count. So what if Luxemburg, Malta etc have a league, if the calibre and professionalism is no better than the CPSL or the LSEQ then they are no better off than canada.

[massimo]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

We need more full size indoor facilities. Where players can train and play on full size feilds and not tennis courts.

I can speak for Montreal. Their two full sized indoor fields; being The Catalogna SoccerPlexxe in Lachine and the Complex Bois de Boulogne in Laval (newly constructed opening in november).

Anoth exists in St-Jean Richelieu Complexe Adidas I think its called.

Concerning seating i don't know.

But the infrastructure exists here to support a Club and indoor season, I think.

[massimo]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

We need more full size indoor facilities. Where players can train and play on full size feilds and not tennis courts.

I can speak for Montreal. Their two full sized indoor fields; being The Catalogna SoccerPlexxe in Lachine and the Complex Bois de Boulogne in Laval (newly constructed opening in november).

Anoth exists in St-Jean Richelieu Complexe Adidas I think its called.

Concerning seating i don't know.

But the infrastructure exists here to support a Club and indoor season, I think.

[Daniel]

Some games at the Sportplexx in Laval (it has boards) attract around 300 people, which fill up the stands.