Columnist John Kass really gets soccer...

In the pub, you'll see why Europe is in a fever pitch

Too bad that the Trib's sports page was filled with coverage of yet another meaningless, early-season baseball game the day after Moscow.

{I've moved to soccerorb.wordpress.com}

I watched the Champions League final at Fado, a pub in downtown Chicago. I hadn’t been there before, and didn’t know anything about the number of screens, nor how easy it would be to get a table with a good view. So I recorded the game and, happily, remembered to set up the DVR to record two shows afterward…just in case.

{By the way, Soccer Orb has moved to http://soccerorb.wordpress.com/}

I don’t usually watch games in pubs. Let’s see, there was last year’s Gold Cup final at Quigley’s and a Chicago Fire playoff game in 2006 at the Globe and…that’s about it. I am not very social about these things. I like to concentrate on the game, and freely express my wild and (usually) unfounded opinions to Steve. But I was persuaded that the first-ever all-English Champions League final should be seen in public, even though there would be Chelsea supporters there.

We arrived about ninety minutes before the start, but only one table was open. We snagged it. Things got a bit tight as the crowd grew, but everyone around us was generous about sharing space. I didn’t have a perfect view, but I did see every bit of the action. Some people in the group–Steve’s friend Jonathan and friends–elected to stand for a more direct view of the game. They don’t seem bothered by this, though.

The atmosphere at Fado was great. The place was jammed with serious supporters of both teams, although red shirts outnumbered blue. Each side was enthusiastic but mostly respectful. Best of all, everyone was really, really into the game. Any worries that I had about the presence of casual, quasi-fans who would distract from the match were completely unfounded. And after van der Sar blocked Nicolas Anelka’s penalty the party really got under way for the celebrating United supporters.

This evening I treated myself to a second viewing of the game. It was a delight to watch it without yo-yoing between numbness and high anxiety. Who can savor the drama of a penalty shoot-out right in the middle of it? Not I. All that disappointment when Petr Cech easily saved Ronaldo’s poorly-taken shot seems so excessive just now, knowing as I do that the trophy would still be United’s.

And John Terry’s misery? Just as awful to watch this time as the first.

"The top four next year will be the same top four as this year."

That was Kevin Keegan's prediction after Newcastle United's loss to Chelsea in the penultimate game of the season.  He grumbled that the league's evolution into an elite, uncrackable quartet plus sixteen also-rans meant that "boring" football was the inevitable result. 

Keegan's words unleashed a torrent of commentary.  Just google "Keegan Football Boring" and take your pick of the opinions that were offered up by everyone from Reading's Steve Coppell to every sports journalist in Britain to bloggers around the globe--except Soccer Orb.  That is because I'm not inclined to conduct an examination of the state of English football that is sufficiently thorough and comparative to analyze Keegan's assertions.  It is true that since I've followed the English game (1998 or so), the title has been held by only three teams--Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea.  And the top four are nearly always those three teams, plus Liverpool.  However, Everton finished fourth as recently as 2005 and both Newcastle United and Leeds United--currently residing in the "where-are-they-now" file--made several appearances during the past decade. 

[By the way, Soccer Orb has moved to http://soccerorb.wordpress.com]

OK, I am straying off-point already.  I know that the rich tend to get richer in the world of sport, especially in European soccer.  Teams that regularly appear in the Champions League have access to cash flows that open doors that will forever remain closed to lesser teams.  Everybody knows that.  But does that make the EPL boring?  Speaking from an American viewpoint--not at all. 

I'm not talking about this year's nail-biting race for the title, nor the relegation drama at the other end of the table.  What fascinates me are the multitude of competitions that define the English (and European) football seasons year after year.  I was reminded of this by today's UEFA Cup Final match between Glasgow Rangers and Zenit St. Petersburg.   Though not as prestigious nor lucrative as the Champions League, the UEFA Cup tournament is a long, grueling tournament that's a real prize.  It's a competition that's been held for nearly forty years.  Eighty clubs participate in the first round; over the years the most successful have been Juventus, Inter Milan, and Liverpool. 

I need hardly mention the magnitude of the Champions League.  Most American sports fans couldn't imagine an extra-league competition that runs simultaneously with the domestic league schedule (for fun, try suggesting this to an NFL or Major League Baseball fan).  And even though the CL format is a daunting one, where truly the best of the best slog through months of competition, it's not as if Champions League glory has always been reserved for a domestic league winner.  Liverpool finished in 5th place in 2005, yet won a great victory over AC Milan in the Champions League final. 

Then there's the FA Cup.  True, it lacks the prestige of Europe and the top English teams often field youthful, inexperienced players in the early rounds.  But Manchester United and Chelsea fought tooth and nail in the Cup final last May, if you'll remember.  Winning a "Double" is so difficult that it's been done only ten times since 1889 and just one team has ever won the Premiership, the FA Cup, and the Champions League.

I don't see a shortage of meaningful competition in English club soccer.  The relegation/promotion system that governs the many layers of competition in England guarantees that things get shaken up often enough in the lower half of the table to keep things interesting.  It's obvious that the top of the Premiership strongly resembles a very stable oligarchy, yet this doesn't trouble me.  Why?  Because real achievement seems to be measured by multiple trophies these days.  Those top clubs are held to higher standards that are more difficult to meet.  Doubles and trebles are rare and likely to remain so.  Moreover, competition among those top clubs is keen.  Were any supporters of Manchester United, Chelsea, or Arsenal bored this season?  I doubt it.

I understand that the examples I'm providing here don't really speak to Keegan's point, which is the unlikelihood of second or third-tier clubs breaking the top four's stranglehold on Premiership glory.  This is probably true.   And it won't change unless the FA bans its clubs from participating in lucrative European competitions.  Until that happens, those Brits who find the Premiership boring are welcome to take a trip across the pond.  Maybe they would like to see a baseball game...perhaps between the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals.  Both teams were hopelessly out of contention--for anything at all--weeks before the 2007 season was over. With no threat of relegation, why did the fans even bother to show up?  To drink beer, eat hot dogs and peanuts?

Here's the new address:  http://soccerorb.wordpress.com/

I'm in the process of moving old posts, but I hope to start blogging for real again soon.

I'm going to add a couple of links to my list of fellow supporters. 

The first is Albion Road.  I'm not sure how long it's been around, but it's a terrific reference site.  There are extensive profiles of football clubs and leagues from around the world, as well as articles and book reviews.  And I am smitten with this site's name.  According to Wikipedia, "Albion" is the most ancient known name of Great Britain, so it's perfect for a website that's all about that sceptered isle's greatest gift to the world.  (And yes I am including Adam Smith, the Magna Carta, and Shakespeare among those gifts)!

I've recently discovered billsportsmaps.com, and it is just amazing.  You can pull up a map of pretty much every country with a pro league, click on one of its highlighted cities and see a display of basic info about the team's history--date of inception, number of titles, etc.--and a little graphic showing the team's colors.  This is not just limited to football/soccer.  There's American football, baseball, and even Negro league baseball.  I have just learned that the Chicago American Giants played from 1910-1952 and won two Negro world series titles.  And the Kansas City Monarchs played until 1965???  I had no idea that segregation in baseball lasted so long. 

Getting back to football...Bill also has attendance figures, pictures of grounds, and all sorts of other tidbits about various leagues (attendance in Ukraine, for example).  Oddly enough, there's a great map of the North American Soccer League, but none that I can find for Major League Soccer.  Not sure if that's an oversight or a Freudian slip of some sort...

One of these days I will make good on my promise to create a new, non-MSN blog...I really, truly will. 

Nothing, actually.  But then what would I write about?

So let's just say that this post will include a few complaints, so that I can get it out of my system and move on.  First of all, I'm annoyed that I forgot to set up the DVR to tape the ESPN2 telecast of the game.  All four goals occurred at the south end of Toyota Park and we have terrific seats toward the north end.  I had the brilliant idea of changing our seats last year, moving them up from the 4th to the 20th row.  This gives a better view of the south end of the field.  The bad news is that the perpetual stream of humanity flowing up and down the steps tends to block that view.  (Curmudgeon-ette alert:  I'm convinced that at least half of the people at Fire games are there only to buy beer and food.  The game itself is of little interest to them.  The reasons for this are one of the mysteries of the universe.  If you really, really crave a Bud Light, couldn't you go to Jewel and buy a six-pack for something less than $6.25 a bottle)?  The good news about these seats is that we weren't touched by the steady rain because they're protected by the awning.

I would have loved to watch the replays of those four goals.  The Fire scored early and often throughout the first half, beginning in the 4th minute and ending in the 40th.  The first goal was set up by Justin Mapp, who, I'm delighted to report, seems to be right back where he was before last year's long injury layoff.  He moved smartly down the left and deftly crossed over to Chad Barrett.  1-0 Fire...and it went downhill from there for the Revolution.  In the 7th minute the Revs' Jeff Larentowicz was sent off for bringing down Brandon Prideaux.  Even though I was sitting in a pretty good spot, these things happen so quickly that it's hard to get a good look.  For the ref to send someone off on a straight red in the 7th minute of the second game of the season seemed pretty harsh, so I had to assume that it was a nasty tackle.  I wondered if officials worldwide were cracking down on borderline tackles in the wake of Eduardo da Silva's nightmarish injury.  But this morning I read on Soccernet that Prideaux may have tripped on the wet turf.  Sigh.  If only I could look at the replay...

What else?  Oh yes, the Fire's acquisition of 33-year-old striker Tomascz Frankowski has paid off already.  He scored two goals, one on either side of the penalty kick that Cuauhtemoc Blanco blasted in in the 36th.  Frankowski was a Polish international as recently as last season.  The circuitous route that has brought him to Chicago includes stints with Wisla Krakow, Tenerife, and Wolverhampton Wolves.  He scored for Wisla in both UEFA Cup and Champions League play, and notched twelve goals as well for the Wolves in 2005/2006.  His stint with Tenerife in the Spanish Segunda Division was brief, but he picked up two goals there.  Though Frankowski doesn't have Blanco's glittering credentials, I'm optimistic that he will continue to find the net for the Fire.  The icing on the cake would be if he could help the team tap into our huge population of Polish immigrants and juice up the attendance figures, much as Blanco has done with the Mexican community.  The official attendance for last night's match was 15,000-something.  Not terrible for a cold, rainy weeknight, I guess, but we should be doing better.

What else can I complain about?  The generally sloppy level of play, that's what.  Blame it on the rain, the chill, the pitch, or early-season rustiness, but the only two consistently intelligent and skilled offensive guys in red were Blanco and Mapp.  I didn't get such a good look at Frankowski from my vantage point, and he was subbed out in the 46th minute.  Two goals should show plenty of skill and smarts, but this is a whiny post, remember?  Between Mapp's injury and Blanco's mid-season arrival, they had almost no chance to play together last season.  I can hardly wait to see what those two might cook up together as this season matures.

My final complaint has to do with our fans' treatment of Matt Reis.  During the second half, I saw at least half a dozen projectiles hurled his way.  Even after they cleared it away and a warning came over the PA, more junk was tossed at him.  No doubt the Revs' keeper has done something truly egregious to deserve this treatment (Susan rolls her eyes).  But don't you guys remember how Tim Howard was injured by a nail that was thrown in front of his goal during a warm-up before a recent friendly with Mexico?  Isn't it possible, even likely, that Jon Busch may receive similar treatment in Foxboro?  I'm not exactly a pacifist (The Guy snickers), but trite sayings like "An eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind," should find some resonance in the world of sport.  Besides, Fire fans should be above such behavior.  God knows I love and admire Section 8's passionate support.  But why give clueless soccer-bashers any more ammunition against our sport?

Rant over.

The Good:  Michael Bradley's three-goal performance for Dutch Eredivisie club Heerenveen in last Sunday's victory over FC Groningen.  He made the difference in the match and he's ours, all ours.

The Bad:  Juan Carlos Osorio dumped the Fire for New York.  Hey, it's a free market out there (well, not really in MLS), so why shouldn't he use Chicago as a steppingstone?  I had to laugh when Luis Arroyave reported that the entire Osorio family was stunned to learn that Bruce Arena's salary was so much higher than his.  Juan Carlos should surf over to HousingTracker.net and compare median asking prices of single family homes in New York to those in Chicago.  Poor Chicago does indeed lag behind the Big Apple:  $285,000 to $439,000.  Oh wait, high housing prices are a bad thing, aren't they?  Maybe that's why Bruce Arena's salary was so much higher than JC's:  NY's substantially higher cost of living.  Or maybe it had something to do with Arena's extensive coaching experience in the US, including his long tenure for the USMNT?  Whatever.  Who cares, anyway?  It's not as if Osorio is Sir Alex Ferguson.

The Ugly:  DaMarcus Beasley's season at Glasgow Rangers is probably over.  He just had major surgery on his right knee and is expected to need up to six months of recovery time.  I'm still pretty possessive about DaMarcus.  I remember when he first came up with the Fire--speedy, skinny, and super-exciting on the left wing.  I was sad to see him go, but was greedy for maximum Euro-exposure.  In his first season with Rangers, DaMarcus had scored four times, including twice in the Champions League.  Oh well, wait til next year, as we say in Chicago.

The Beautiful:  the sound of The Girl's voice on the phone just now.  In just nine days, she'll be back home after her Nantes semester.  I imagine that this time may pass as slowly as ninety days, so I'm especially grateful that I've got the Manchester United-Liverpool match as a diversion this Sunday.  And after that, Arsenal - Chelsea, and after that...just five more days...

I'd like to extend a welcome to a new soccer blog called Gameday.  Its creator is a guy called Chris who intends to focus on the American game in general and MLS in particular.  In the blog's initial post, Chris spoke with Houston journalist Glenn Davis about the contrast between the Dynamo staff's personal touch and the more glitzy, big-name style that is found in LA.  It extends in everything from Kinnear's coaching style to the the club's marketing efforts.  I also enjoyed the inside look at the Seattle soccer scene in his latest post, which featured an interview with (USL) Sounders owner Adrian Hanauer.  You can sense Hanauer's excitement with the process of transitioning Seattle soccer to major league status.  (I think being the owner and/or general manager of a soccer club would be my dream career.  It beats the dismal science any day)!  There are plenty of issues to keep the front office busy until the team takes the field in 2009, not the least of which is the decision about the new club's name.  Should it stay with Sounders or "rebrand," as the marketing people say?  Head over to Gameday to read more. 

At one time I was a regular lurker on a Manchester United forum called Redcafe.  Ah, what an innocent I was!  For the cost of a few hours of my time, I received a top-notch cultural education.  I learned a new vocabulary term:  glory-hunter.  I learned that United's wild popularity around the globe didn't give every fan the warm fuzzies.  And I learned that there was an unwritten rule that only the support of one's local team was appropriate.  Ouch!  To this naive little dismal scientist, that last one smacked of sports protectionism.

The most recent era of glorious football at Old Trafford began in the 1990's.  Thanks to their Champions League success and the broadcasting largesse of ESPN, I had seen more Red Devils games than those of any other team--including our very own Chicago Fire, who came to town in 1998.   Until this household tuned into Fox Sports World, Champions League telecasts were the only way to see soccer, aside from the World Cup.  Man United was the team that I had happened to see most frequently.  It was natural that it would be my favorite, right?  Not exactly.  According to the vocal denizens of Redcafe, I had committed some sort of faux pas.  People like me, apparently, were ruining English football.

Much of what I read on that forum made my jaw drop.  Many posters would introduce themselves by reciting a sort of pedigree:  "I've been going to games since 1970...my dad used to take me...I'm from ______, suburb of Manchester...."  In other words, these people didn't want to be mistaken for the glory hunters who had latched on to United as their favorite team during the trophy-laden, high-flying days of late.  In their eyes, people like me weren't true supporters.  We would evaporate as soon as the team hit a rough patch.  (Thanks to Sir Alex' genius, I haven't been tested yet, nine years on).  And worse, our presence was the source of all kinds of nasty externalities (unintended side effects):  bigger crowds, ticket scarcity, higher ticket prices, and...not enough singing at the games.  These pseudo fans showed up at Old Trafford because, apparently, football had become fashionable.  They didn't know the songs and, besides, they were too busy stuffing themselves with prawn sandwiches to carry a tune.  The nouveau fans drove up the demand for shirts and other United gear.  Everything was more expensive for those pedigreed supporters who had been there for generations. 

To summarize the Redcafe attitude:  If you're not from Manchester, why would you care about United?

To summarize my attitude:  It's easy-peasy for you guys to "support" United.  They play in your own back yard!  You were sitting on your grand-dad's knee at every home match.  No one looks at you and says "huh?" when you tell them your favorite sports team is Manchester United.  I would love to sing at Old Trafford every other weekend, but it's a bit pricey to get there from Chicago.  In other words, I really have to work at supporting the team.

I was "gobsmacked" (love that word) at how different my American attitude was from theirs.  While most of us do favor our local sports teams, we tend to move around a lot, so those ties are weaker.  We think nothing of identifying with a team that may be several time zones away.  We definitely aren't insulted by out of towners who love our favorite teams, either--what could be more complimentary?  No doubt there are guys in Texas who still have a soft spot for the Red Sox because Roger Clemens starred for them two decades ago.  So what?  The more the merrier!

Ah, but there's the rub.  You can't just drop by Fenway Park to take in a Red Sox game any more.  After two World Series victories in three years, you'll pay a hefty price for tickets, assuming you can lay your hands on any.  This got me to thinking about what would happen if soccer ever did become as popular in the US as it is nearly everywhere else...

The Fire would probably insist that I purchase the full season ticket package, instead of the half-season.  The price would be a lot higher than the $30 or so per seat that I've been paying (for very nice seats, too).  It is true that the atmosphere at the games would be more intense if every game sold out.  But we've been drawing pretty well this year and most of the people sitting around me are very much into the games.  It's cool to go to Fire games because you know that you're there with the other true believers, people who don't mind standing up to the tiresome soccer-bashers in the media who try to tell us what we should and shouldn't like. I began to sympathize with the long-time supporters in Manchester.  When Beckham came to town our little stadium was overrun by tons of little kids.  I don't mind having kids at the matches--I want them to be there, believe me.  But their parents kept getting up every five minutes to buy them snacks.  Didn't they know that they were missing large chunks of the match?  Were they the Chicago equivalent of prawn-sandwich eaters?

Another benefit to soccer's lower profile here is that we haven't been overrun by ultra-type fans.  Have we had any casualties among supporters?  Didn't think so. 

Do I really suffer because soccer is the red-headed stepchild among American sports?  Er, no.  With Fox Soccer Channel and Champions League on ESPN I am treated to a banquet of world football coverage.  (It would be even better if my neighborhood allowed satellite dishes and then I could get Setanta).  And, dare I say this, soccer-mad Americans are better off than their Euro counterparts.  We have MLS in the summer months, which gives us twelve full months of footy.  No sneering about MLS quality either, Euro friends, as I know that many of you follow lower-division clubs.  Moreover, I predict that MLS is on its way to bigger and better things.  I am a very finicky consumer, and this is the first year that I've been really drawn into the league.  It's not because of that guy they brought to LA either.  MLS is definitely not the same quality as the EPL, Serie A, or La Liga, but it does have some talented players and plenty of drama to tide me over from May to August.

I'm not arguing that life is perfectly sweet for Yank soccer fans.  It's a struggle for those who don't live close to an MLS city, have no cable or the internet.  But those of us who want to experience the beautiful game can do so quite beautifully, thanks very much. 

It's settled, then.  The Fire will travel to Foxboro to face the New England Revolution--again--in the Eastern Conference finals.  Irony is irresistible, so I'm going to suggest that 2007 is the year that the Fire will reverse the curse.* 

Just a minute...what curse?  Whispers in the soccersphere suggest that New England has Chicago's number in the playoffs.  Hmmm...have the Revs laid waste to the Fire's playoff hopes every single time that the two teams have met in the post-season?  Not exactly.  That sounds more like the Fire-DC United situation.  Chicago truly is United's playoff nemesis, as DC has never snatched a playoff victory from the Fire.  The streak stretches back to 1998 when Chicago beat United 2-0 to claim the MLS Cup in its inaugural season. 

It is true that the Revolution knocked the Fire out of the playoffs in 2002, 2005 and 2006.  But the Revolution went down to the Fire in 2000 and 2003.  The three times that New England ended the Fire's season were hardly upsets, either.  In 2002, the Revs finished the season with 38 points to Chicago's 37.  The playoff format was different back then, with the conference semifinals determined by a best of three game series.  New England took that series, two games to one.  The teams were evenly matched, someone had to win, and the series wasn't a blowout.  That's life.

In 2005 the two sides met in the conference finals.  In that case New England had a significantly better season than Chicago--59 points to 49--yet the Revs won narrowly in Foxboro, 1-0.  I would say that the Fire performed above expectations.  Last year was indeed heartbreaking for the Fire and its fans.  Chicago won the first game 1-0 at home.  The match in Foxboro ended with New England ahead 2-1.  The Fire then floundered in the decisive penalty shootout.  Yet overall the conference semifinal was a close one, much as would be expected of two teams that once again finished the season separated by a single point. 

What about 2007?  The Revs ended the season ten points ahead of the Fire.  They lost two of the teams' three matches, though, including their last meeting on October 6.  The Fire had to come from behind to win that one, on goals by Chris Rolfe and Chad Barret.  That late season performance was a great leap forward, compared to what we saw during a dry spell in May, June and (pre-Blanco) July.  Only eight goals were scored during one twelve-game stretch.  We've heard a lot about how the Fire haven't lost a game since early September, but actually the tide began to turn in late July.  Since July 29th, they've lost only twice in league play--once to Kansas City and once to New York.  Much of this turnaround has been attributed to Cuauhtemoc Blanco.  He's had a remarkable impact, but don't forget new defender Wilman Conde, or Chris Rolfe's return from a long injury layoff.

Conclusion:  Chicago was only the seventh of eight teams to qualify for the MLS playoffs.  (They were ahead of KC because of the season head-to-head record).  So what?  They picked up 24 of their 40 points in the second half of the season.  Momentum does count for something and, as they say, the third time is the charm.

*My apologies for stealing the Red Sox' 2004 mantra and using it against another New England team.

Well, yes.  With 55 points, United had the best record in MLS.  If Chicago knocks them out of the playoffs tonight, I guess the Supporters' Shield would offer some consolation.  Don't get me wrong.  I'd be delighted if the Fire beat DCU and then went on to win the MLS Cup.  Its 10-10-10 regular season record may define mediocrity, but I would set aside my principles to celebrate Chicago's second MLS Cup.  You'd have to be pretty hard-hearted not to pity United's fans, though.  What was the point of that 30 game season?   

In fact, Martin Rogers of Yahoo Sports argues that MLS' credibility will take a hit if United and the other stronger teams (Chivas, Houston, & New England) are knocked out in the first round.  This isn't just one sportswriter's opinion, either.  Here's a quote from the article:

"There is no reward for busting your ass for half the year," said a high-ranking MLS club executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the commissioner loves the playoffs and no one is going to take him on over this."

Euro-snob that I am, anything other than a single-table, promotion/relegation system usually makes me turn up my nose in disgust.  Yet I'm resigned to the fact that relegation is not gonna happen in these United States.  With neither relegation nor playoffs, how would MLS drum up attendance at mid- or late-season games for teams that are far out of contention for the top spot in the table?  The answer:  it wouldn't.  What would be at stake for those teams?  The top four qualify for the North American Superliga competition, but only the top two qualify for the CONCACAF Champions Cup--the MLS Cup winner and the Supporters Shield winner.  This contrasts sharply with the EPL, where ten of the twenty places in the table meant something at season's end, between relegation, Champions League and UEFA Cup qualification.  Throw in the teams fighting for that last UEFA spot (like Reading, last year), or trying to dodge relegation (Wigan, Fulham, West Ham), and there are only a handful of clubs slogging through a meaningless season.

That's not too different from the current MLS situation.  Rogers points out that with eight out of thirteen teams qualifying for the playoffs there's little reason to care about league games during the long, hot summer.  He offers a few suggestions, including allowing the top teams to pick their opponents during the first playoff round.  Though it's flattering to imagine that DC United would use this option to dodge the Fire, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem:  MLS needs the playoff gimmick to juice up interest in the league.

What do I think?  No worries, in the long run.  As MLS expands to more cities, a lower percentage of teams will play in the post-season.  Fans will become aware of the prestige of extra-league play--recall that the North American Superliga crowned its first champion just this year), and a finish in the top four will be a consolation for being knocked out of the playoffs.  Much as purists despise the playoff system, missing the post season will serve as de facto relegation.  The loss of revenue and personnel shakeups would seem to concentrate management's mind pretty well.

By the way, a team that finished lower than second in its division has won the MLS Cup only once.  That was the LA Galaxy, who finished 4th in the West before winning the Cup in 2005.  So the odds are against the MLS honchos sweating it out over "undeserving" teams advancing this weekend. 

So I'm trying to accept my status as a plain vanilla Chicago Fire fan.  Sometimes at Toyota Park I avoid looking over to my right.  Why?  Because those guys make me feel guilty.  That's where the real supporters sit--er, stand.  Behind the goal at the Harlem Avenue end of our lovely, almost-new ground is where you'll find Section 8 Chicago.  (See what I mean?  They're in Wikipedia)!  During the entire game, they stand, sing, chant, and bang drums.  They set off flares and smoke bombs.  There are banners big enough to cover the whole section.  And flags...huge gorgeous flags so big I don't know how one person can wave them.

The group got its name from the section it once occupied in the pre-renovated Soldier Field.  It seems to be an umbrella organization that includes several affiliates, such as Barn Burners 1871, the Arsonists, Fire Ultras '98, and Ultras Red-Side.  There are smaller groups including one called The Shandy Sisters whose irreverence is especially intriguing. 

I don't want to copy the membership requirements for Section 8 and the Ultras Red-Side, both of which are easily found on their websites.  Here's the gist:  you've gotta be committed, baby.  You must attend at least half of the home games, have no other club affiliation, and be possessed of a sincere desire to put heart & soul into supporting the Fire.  The people who sign up aren't just ticking "accept" after scrolling through these terms and conditions.  They mean every single word.    

Other MLS teams have supporter groups, some of whom seem to be very dedicated.  The Torontans who showed up in Chicago this summer certainly had an ultra look to them.  I haven't been to any MLS games outside Chicago, but I'd have to see it with my own eyes to believe that any other supporters can outdo Section 8.  Toronto may be the exception to this claim.  From what I've seen on TV, its entire stadium is filled with ultra-esque types. 

So why do Section 8 supporters give me a raging inferiority complex?  I'm good Fire fan, I am.  I've been going to matches since 1998.  I've listened to games in the car, in Spanish, and I don't speak Spanish.  (I do, however, understand "gooooooal").  I watch the games on TV whenever possible and most years I'm a half-season ticket holder.  I've got Fire scarves and a t-shirt.*  But, but, but...I don't want to sit behind the goal.  I'm afraid that I'll get scolded if I forget myself and sit down for a few minutes.  And honestly, have you heard me sing?  It would be disrespectful to the Fire--indeed, to all of Major League Soccer--if I sang in Toyota Park. 

So I guess that Section 8 isn't the place for me.  I applaud its style, and especially envy the pre-match tailgating.  I'll just have to admire its citizens from afar, and take pride in the way that they represent Chicago.

*Gripe alert!  I would wear my Fire t-shirt much more often if only the market would respond to the needs of women and make feminine, fitted shirts instead of those boxy man-shirts!  Geez, haven't they watched Trinny & Susannah on What Not to Wear?

What do toilet paper and club soccer have in common?  According to Forbes magazine, 2007 marks the 150th anniversary for both.  Of course, variations of the game itself have been around for centuries (just like tp substitutes, one hopes).  But an important step on the long, fitful path toward organized competition was taken on October 24, 1857 with the founding of Sheffield Football Club.  Unlike some other inventions from 1857--elevators and transatlantic telegraph cable--competitive club soccer didn't immediately become a big-time commercial enterprise.  At first, Sheffield had no one to play against, forcing the club to stage games between members--bachelors vs. married men, for example.  And it would be nearly three decades later before open professionalism was given the stamp of approval by the FA.  It's hard to believe that just 150 years ago today's glamour game was a chaotic mess of quasi-professionals whose play was governed by a motley patchwork of rules. 

Forbes is a business publication, so the article's author duly notes how soccer's worldwide sporting dominance has helped to enrich shareholders of Nike, Adidas, and Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp.  Real Madrid and Manchester United are global brands and ownership of top English clubs is the province of the super-wealthy.  Apparently this is news to some Forbes readers. 

As I read about the beautiful game's humble origins, I began to think about what life was like in 19th century England.  What did people do for fun?  Was soccer the only game in town?  Just how did it become so popular?

With the help of Wikipedia and a library book called Sports and Games of the 18th and 19th Centuries by Robert Crego (Greenwood Press, 2003), I learned a bit more about Victorian sporting life.  Cricket was already the most established team sport.  It had a big head start on soccer in terms of standardized rules, organization, and popularity.  Crego states that it was "flourishing" a full one hundred years before the founding of Sheffield FC. 

And then there's rugby football.  It had begun to evolve separately from the kicking game by the early 1800's.  To my 21st century eyes, rugby seems like anything but an upper-class pastime, but that's exactly what it was.  The working class did take to the oval ball game as the century wore on.  In fact, Crego describes how the 1876 Yorkshire Cup Challenge was won by a team of working blokes, much to the dismay of those who considered such men their inferiors. The Rugby Football Union was formed in 1870, just eight years after the London Football Association.  The Rugby Football League appeared in 1895 to govern the different style of play that was prevalent among the clubs in the north of England.

Golf and tennis were always socially exclusive but boxing and horse racing thrived among all classes.  Writing of boxing, Crego notes, "With Britain at the height of its industrial boom, even the factory hand and the common laborer had money to spend on entertainment."  Professional horse racing took root in the early 18th century.  Races were often part of the entertainment at fairs and festivals, where spectators included both farmers and gentry.  There were other sports whose appeal was mostly limited to public school students, or anyone else whose means allowed it:  cycling, rowing, track and field, cross country running, and even field hockey. 

Get the picture?  Soccer didn't develop in a vacuum.  It was a survivor in a battle that was as rough and tumble as the economic competition that characterized the Industrial Revolution.  Its beauty lay in its simplicity, lack of expense, and accessibility.  Marketing, advertising, and public relations gimmicks weren't part of the formula.  To get an idea of the extent to which soccer permeates the English landscape, have a look at the structure of the English Football League system.  Fanciful names--to Yank ears, at least--like Wycombe Wanderers and Accrington Stanley populate the current League Two table, far below glittering "brands" like Manchester United and Chelsea.  Yet League Two holds a lofty spot in the pyramid, compared to the likes of Moneyfields and Wimborne Town in the Wessex League (Premier Division).

The business of English football couldn't be described as a smashing success until the top teams split off into the Premier League in 1992.  Revenues poured into the new league from the sale of television broadcasting rights, tapping into a huge global demand for its product.  According to Wikipedia, the latest TV rights deal (2007) will bring the League 2.7 billion pounds over three years.  Compare this to the Premier League's first sale of TV rights to Sky back in 1991--191 million pounds over five years--and it's easy to see how the average player's salary rose from 75,000 to 676,000 pounds per year over nearly the same period (latest figures were for the 2003-04 season).  And to think that we Americans have been rather pleased with the 2007 MLS season! 

So all of this means...what, exactly?  That the conditions that produced English football are so vastly different from what brought about MLS that making comparisons is a waste of time.  The complaints of Euro-snobs (like me) about MLS quality are very much beside the point.  The Brits, not to mention the rest of the world, should be better than us.  They've been at it since the game was known as "mob ball" in the Middle Ages. 

It might take several light-years to cross the canyon that separates the English soccer experience from what what's going on in the US and Canada.  At least there are a few oases for those who are trudging across this expanse, namely Fox Soccer Channel, GolTV and Setanta.  Most of the time--unless David Beckham's in town--the local MLS team will welcome weary pilgrims with open arms.  Major League Soccer may not completely quench anyone's thirst.  Yet with stars like Blanco, Dichio, Angel, and Altidore, league expansion, soccer-specific stadiums, and expanded live TV coverage--it's no mirage, either.