| generic-user-1 said:
2. the level of play isnt that bad, sure they dont play like CL, but well not even all Clubs that qualify for CL play like CL. 3. the MLS is completly love and meaningless, thats the problem. the league system has big flaws. there is nothing like 10k people start crying out loud because your team lost the last game and has to play liga 2 next year(or liga 3...) |
On point 3 to me it depends on what you want out of a league. The European model is one that celebrates greatness, while the North American model is one that celebrates competition. From a neutral perspective it is amazing to watch a Bayern or Barcelona tear through another team 6-0. However, the actual battle for a league champion has little suspense. It is "fair" in the sense that the best win 95% of the time, but being that predictable grows weary if you follow a smaller club. I honestly am really impressed by the commitment of friends I have in Europe who follow a Sankt Pauli or Getafe or Norwich. They know they will NEVER win a championship unless some billionaire pours money into them like Chelsea or Manchester City or PSG.
I am not saying MLS is perfect, but for me it feels a bit more "fair" in the sense that if a side is bad it is mostly down to poor management, or rebuilding or injuries. There is a wealth gap, but it is not so overwhelming that smaller club cannot make a move. Take for example my own club, DC United, which in the midst of getting a new stadium has been more conservative in spending. In 2013 we finished bottom of the league, 19th, and yet due to some great moves in 2014 we finished 3rd. This year players are older and have injuries so looking mid table or roughly 10-12th place. I still have hope we can win something in the next ten years, and if we don't it won't be because we never had a chance.
Both systems have their merits, and I am likely biased due to being raised in the US. I do prefer our model of competition that encourages smart player management over out spending an opponent.
