Jump to content

OT: Professional Soccer in St. Louis


Recommended Posts

I do not think the problem with soccer in the US is popularity. I think soccer is actually quite popular but I think the competition for the dollars to be successful is difficult. Baseball and football are very difficult to compete with. The interest is there but in todays environment, soccer in the US is just a little late to the marketshare game. I think the MLS is working in the right direction by growing slowly and trying to get a solid base to work from. IMO it could succeed but they will have to continue on a slow strong growth because when you talk MLB and NFL, billions is the conversation. The NHL and NBA are both feeling the effects of the big 2 and have been popular and established in the US for many years. Soccer in St. Louis is still incredibly popular but yet these folks fail to support the attempts of professional teams.

It just takes time. As more and more kids play, more and more kids will grow up being soccer fans. Most people my age (St. Louis is not the norm) did not grow up playing soccer and don't really understand the game so they don't like it. They didn't have a love of soccer passed on from their dad's. More kids play today than did 20 years ago and more adults today played as kids than they did 20 years before that ... it'll grow generation by generation.

Soccer is also a game you have to really understand to enjoy. There isn't a lot of scoring so if you don't understand the game and the excitement that comes from the chance and the build up you probably won't get it. Are there boring soccer games? Of course, just as there are boring football, baseball, and basketball games. However, if you really understand the game a 0-0 game is frequently very exciting as one goal is all it takes. Every run up the wing, every free kick from within 40 yards, every through ball, can be the difference, the winner. The shootout imo isn't a good way to solve a tie, but hell is sudden death in the NFL? You drive 40 yards and kick a field goal and thats it?

What I don't get is why non soccer fans seem to feel so threatened by the sport that they constantly have to make negative comments. You get it from media who don't know the game and from idiots like MB73 on messgage boards. It don't get why. I don't like Star Trek, but I've never felt an urge to find a Star Trek message board and degrade it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Kevin.

You started this thread to try to support your flawed opinion that soccer lacks popularity in the U.S.

Your support for that opinion is the lack of success of a local womens professional soccer team and the lack of local success of a minor league men's soccer team.

A+B does not equal Z.

You try to compare these and other leagues to top level division leagues of other sports as well.

You ignore any and all facts that don't support your flawed theory.

When your flawed positions becomes exposed, repeatedly, you get riled up ad try to belittle others that do not support your flawed position. Repeat cycle. Groundhog day.

There are easier and more long lasting ways to gain self-esteem.

I was simply quoting the article that I posted. If you have a problem, take it up with the author. The article was about failed soccer teams in St. Louis. There has been a long history of that over the past 35 years or so. That is a fact you simply can't refute. In fact, you've cowered away from addressing it. You are the one making comparisons to the EPL and Continental Basketball Association, etc. I didn't do that in this thread. I simple answered a question that clock tower had about MLS. Talk about groundhog day. You can't pay attention whatsoever.

To your point in this post. Soccer does lack popularity in terms of ratings. I don't see how you can dispute that. It may be slowly improving, but it's still not very good. You sound like the girl who thinks she's very good looking but doesn't get asked out on many dates..."I am good looking and popular!!!!"

You are the one who absolutely contradicts himself throughout this thread. You have provided very little in the way of facts to support anything.

You set up rules for others to follow and don't follow them yourself. You compare to other sports and quote other threads, but no one else can!

My self esteem is quite good. Good enough, in fact, to let you have the last word on this if you like. It will be another load of garbage anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just takes time. As more and more kids play, more and more kids will grow up being soccer fans. Most people my age (St. Louis is not the norm) did not grow up playing soccer and don't really understand the game so they don't like it. They didn't have a love of soccer passed on from their dad's. More kids play today than did 20 years ago and more adults today played as kids than they did 20 years before that ... it'll grow generation by generation.

Soccer is also a game you have to really understand to enjoy. There isn't a lot of scoring so if you don't understand the game and the excitement that comes from the chance and the build up you probably won't get it. Are there boring soccer games? Of course, just as there are boring football, baseball, and basketball games. However, if you really understand the game a 0-0 game is frequently very exciting as one goal is all it takes. Every run up the wing, every free kick from within 40 yards, every through ball, can be the difference, the winner. The shootout imo isn't a good way to solve a tie, but hell is sudden death in the NFL? You drive 40 yards and kick a field goal and thats it?

What I don't get is why non soccer fans seem to feel so threatened by the sport that they constantly have to make negative comments. You get it from media who don't know the game and from idiots like MB73 on messgage boards. It don't get why. I don't like Star Trek, but I've never felt an urge to find a Star Trek message board and degrade it.

Skip, soccer has a long way to go, but I agree that it will continue to improve in popularity. No sport has ever started out with immense popularity. I think the expectations for MLS were a little ambitious at its inception, but they have corrected a lot of that over the years. The Jim Rome-esque "soccer sucks" types are pretty silly IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply quoting the article that I posted. If you have a problem, take it up with the author. The article was about failed soccer teams in St. Louis. There has been a long history of that over the past 35 years or so. That is a fact you simply can't refute. In fact, you've cowered away from addressing it. You are the one making comparisons to the EPL and Continental Basketball Association, etc. I didn't do that in this thread. I simple answered a question that clock tower had about MLS. Talk about groundhog day. You can't pay attention whatsoever.

To your point in this post. Soccer does lack popularity in terms of ratings. I don't see how you can dispute that. It may be slowly improving, but it's still not very good. You sound like the girl who thinks she's very good looking but doesn't get asked out on many dates..."I am good looking and popular!!!!"

You are the one who absolutely contradicts himself throughout this thread. You have provided very little in the way of facts to support anything.

You set up rules for others to follow and don't follow them yourself. You compare to other sports and quote other threads, but no one else can!

My self esteem is quite good. Good enough, in fact, to let you have the last word on this if you like. It will be another load of garbage anyway.

Repeat cycle. Groundhog Day.

You want to continue to compare ratings of minor league professional sports teams to higher level leagues. You want to compare women's professional sports leagues to men's etc...

Apples to oranges.

Why isn't Quad Cities drawing better tv ratings, revenue, attendance, etc...than the MLB Cardinals? I can't understand it. Would someone please explain that to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just takes time. They have been saying that since the 20's. The number of people playing soccer in STL is down from what it was in the 60's and 70's. The decline has been in the older age groups.

More youth are playing soccer in the U.S. than ever before. More kids play soccer in the U.S. than Baseball according to the sporting goods manufacturers association.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just takes time. They have been saying that since the 20's. The number of people playing soccer in STL is down from what it was in the 60's and 70's. The decline has been in the older age groups.

More youth are playing soccer in the U.S. than ever before.(Millions) More kids play soccer in the U.S. than Baseball according to the sporting goods manufacturers association.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the problem with soccer in the US is popularity. I think soccer is actually quite popular but I think the competition for the dollars to be successful is difficult. Baseball and football are very difficult to compete with. The interest is there but in todays environment, soccer in the US is just a little late to the marketshare game. I think the MLS is working in the right direction by growing slowly and trying to get a solid base to work from. IMO it could succeed but they will have to continue on a slow strong growth because when you talk MLB and NFL, billions is the conversation. The NHL and NBA are both feeling the effects of the big 2 and have been popular and established in the US for many years. Soccer in St. Louis is still incredibly popular but yet these folks fail to support the attempts of professional teams.

At the end of your paragraph, you mention the lack of support for a start up women's pro soccer league and men's minor league soccer team. If you'd read this thread or others, you see consistent responses to that.

Hockey is popular in St. Louis yet the United Hockey League is not as supported as the Blues. You have to compare apples to apples.

The English Premier League has more money than Major League Baseball for example. If you are going to compare the better or best leagues in the world of different sports...something I wouldn't do...but if you must, at least make it apples to apples.

More people attend MLS soccer games in the U.S. on a per game basis than the NBA or NHL.

We can all have fun with numbers.

$425 million for U.S. Tv World Cup rights. Ratings for it go up each time it takes place despite the last two being in time zones across the world in Asia and Africa.

The money keeps going up for television rights in the U.S. For MLS, European Leagues etc...Other revenues. Lux suites, local tv, National tv, sponsors, etc...

The direction keeps moving up and up. This despite many challenges and opportunities for strategic improvement.

The other sports are of course different and separate. We could have a whole other conversation on hard salary cap, equal revenue sharing, non-guaranteed contracts, etc...

It hasn't been all that long ago when the U.S. Went 40 years in between World Cup appearances. It hasn't been all that long ago since the best U.S. Players started playing in the World's elite soccer leagues. It hasn't been all that long ago since the U.S. Started attracting and developing African American players. It hasn't been all that long ago that the U.S. Began to learn that youth development is not about keeping score and wins and losses which detracts from the technical focus of the game.

Highest U.S. Viwership ever for a men's soccer game was this past year. It was between two non U.S. Teams and played across the world in a different time zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes time? No, it just isn't there. Nobody will pay to see pro soccer in the USA.

No one wants to pay money to see 90 minutes of soccer, a random-deflected goal, 1-0.

This year in the World Cup, the USA tied Slovenia, I think we beat Ghana by one goal. That sure impressed our youth.

We would pound them in football, baseball, basketball, hockey, boxing, track and field, you name it.

Most all young kids play soccer, it is very good exersize, teaches discipline and teamwork, and can there are plenty of college scholarships out there. Good!

But nobody want to pay to watch it, there are too many other great things to watch here.

Rather than call me an idiot for pointing out the obvious facts, slufanskip, look at it this way: you love your sport, good... but it is going nowhere, you are like the last hard copy encyclopedia salesman on the planet, in denial. Everyone knows it but you and Courtside. (and by the way, Star Trek is goddam awesome; and fyi this is a SLU basketball board)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes time? No, it just isn't there. Nobody will pay to see pro soccer in the USA.

No one wants to pay money to see 90 minutes of soccer, a random-deflected goal, 1-0.

This year in the World Cup, the USA tied Slovenia, I think we beat Ghana by one goal. That sure impressed our youth.

We would pound them in football, baseball, basketball, hockey, boxing, track and field, you name it.

Most all young kids play soccer, it is very good exersize, teaches discipline and teamwork, and can there are plenty of college scholarships out there. Good!

But nobody want to pay to watch it, there are too many other great things to watch here.

Rather than call me an idiot for pointing out the obvious facts, slufanskip, look at it this way: you love your sport, good... but it is going nowhere, you are like the last hard copy encyclopedia salesman on the planet, in denial. Everyone knows it but you and Courtside. (and by the way, Star Trek is goddam awesome; and fyi this is a SLU basketball board)

Skip, consider yourself dominated (you too courtside).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes time? No, it just isn't there. Nobody will pay to see pro soccer in the USA.

No one wants to pay money to see 90 minutes of soccer, a random-deflected goal, 1-0.

This year in the World Cup, the USA tied Slovenia, I think we beat Ghana by one goal. That sure impressed our youth.

We would pound them in football, baseball, basketball, hockey, boxing, track and field, you name it.

Most all young kids play soccer, it is very good exersize, teaches discipline and teamwork, and can there are plenty of college scholarships out there. Good!

But nobody want to pay to watch it, there are too many other great things to watch here.

Rather than call me an idiot for pointing out the obvious facts, slufanskip, look at it this way: you love your sport, good... but it is going nowhere, you are like the last hard copy encyclopedia salesman on the planet, in denial. Everyone knows it but you and Courtside. (and by the way, Star Trek is goddam awesome; and fyi this is a SLU basketball board)

Thanks for reminding us this is a SLU hoops board. I should have known that considering all of your SLU hoops only posts in this thread.

It all really comes back to Yugoslavians. You know, Yugoslavia...the country with more FIBA World Titles in basketball than the United States in the past 20 years, well, also the past 50 years. The United States for much of the past decade did not win an International gold medal of any kind in men's basketball. And somehow from that, I'll not conclude that basketball is not popular in the U.S.

Baseball anyone? The United States didn't even qualify for the 2004 Olympics. Yipes! Not the finish they hoped for in 2008 either, or much of the few decades prior. How can this be? Baseball must not be popular in the U.S.

American television networks paid $425 million so Americans could watch the World Cup in soccer. American television networks are paying 9 figures not counting local tv deals to air European and American soccer leagues.

More people on average attend a second tier pro American soccer league per game, than they do the NBA or NHL.

Is this where I insert a mean-spirited comment?

Cue the Yugoslavian National Anthem.

I'm going to go watch a replay of the 2002 6th place U.S. Finish in the FIBA World Championships. I'm going to tell those foreigners that they need to start kicking a soccer ball around because they don't have a future in hoops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding us this is a SLU hoops board. I should have known that considering all of your SLU hoops only posts in this thread.

It all really comes back to Yugoslavians. You know, Yugoslavia...the country with more FIBA World Titles in basketball than the United States in the past 20 years, well, also the past 50 years. The United States for much of the past decade did not win an International gold medal of any kind in men's basketball. And somehow from that, I'll not conclude that basketball is not popular in the U.S.

Baseball anyone? The United States didn't even qualify for the 2004 Olympics. Yipes! Not the finish they hoped for in 2008 either, or much of the few decades prior. How can this be? Baseball must not be popular in the U.S.

American television networks paid $425 million so Americans could watch the World Cup in soccer. American television networks are paying 9 figures not counting local tv deals to air European and American soccer leagues.

More people on average attend a second tier pro American soccer league per game, than they do the NBA or NHL.

Is this where I insert a mean-spirited comment?

Cue the Yugoslavian National Anthem.

I'm going to go watch a replay of the 2002 6th place U.S. Finish in the FIBA World Championships. I'm going to tell those foreigners that they need to start kicking a soccer ball around because they don't have a future in hoops.

Good point on the former Yugoslavia; the Yugoslavs have emerged and excelled in basketball. Huge people in that area of the world. Most Yugoslavs are large, intelligent, athletic, fearless battlers who will never quit, though some of the nationalities within the former Yugoslavia are more than a tad better than some of the others. But I dare not go into that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of your paragraph, you mention the lack of support for a start up women's pro soccer league and men's minor league soccer team. If you'd read this thread or others, you see consistent responses to that.

Hockey is popular in St. Louis yet the United Hockey League is not as supported as the Blues. You have to compare apples to apples.

The English Premier League has more money than Major League Baseball for example. If you are going to compare the better or best leagues in the world of different sports...something I wouldn't do...but if you must, at least make it apples to apples.

More people attend MLS soccer games in the U.S. on a per game basis than the NBA or NHL.

We can all have fun with numbers.

$425 million for U.S. Tv World Cup rights. Ratings for it go up each time it takes place despite the last two being in time zones across the world in Asia and Africa.

The money keeps going up for television rights in the U.S. For MLS, European Leagues etc...Other revenues. Lux suites, local tv, National tv, sponsors, etc...

The direction keeps moving up and up. This despite many challenges and opportunities for strategic improvement.

The other sports are of course different and separate. We could have a whole other conversation on hard salary cap, equal revenue sharing, non-guaranteed contracts, etc...

It hasn't been all that long ago when the U.S. Went 40 years in between World Cup appearances. It hasn't been all that long ago since the best U.S. Players started playing in the World's elite soccer leagues. It hasn't been all that long ago since the U.S. Started attracting and developing African American players. It hasn't been all that long ago that the U.S. Began to learn that youth development is not about keeping score and wins and losses which detracts from the technical focus of the game.

Highest U.S. Viwership ever for a men's soccer game was this past year. It was between two non U.S. Teams and played across the world in a different time zone.

There was no comparing anything but the marketshare each sport holds in the US. Professional soccer has failed every time in st. louis due to a lack of revenue or lack of investors to keep the funds flowing. That was the only point. The steamers had some success years ago but since then there is little revenue or financial support in st. louis. All have either failed or chosen not to continue. Fact

Link to post
Share on other sites

The link directs you to an MLS Profitability Report...this was created before the League's most popular and profitable team (the Seattle Sounders) had even played a game...

http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=231170&c=49495

Here are a few highlights:

- Every team averages over 10,000 fans (with KC being the low outlier)

- The MLS is expecting to make $5 million dollar PROFIT off of each team this season (I wonder how other major sports were doing comparatively in their 17th year of existence)

- Teams with soccer-specific stadiums have increased profitability (It follows that when every team gets soccer-specific stadiums, profitability will increase dramatically)

Average MLS game attendance is higher than the NBA and NHL (3rd highest behind NFL and MLB)- http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/04/18/mls-average-attendance-higher-than-nba-and-nhl/

For being the world's 20th best League, and being this country's 6th most 'popular' sport, I think these are pretty impressive statistics...

People who think soccer isn't popular in the United States are ignorant of the fact that its popularity varies by region. On the Coasts, and in Texas, interest in soccer is extremely high. To make general characterizations about soccer's unpopularity in the United States as a whole is irresponsible and WRONG...

To suggest something is unpopular implies that you have a control, ie, 'unpopular as compared to X'... The statistics above will tell you that, in fact, soccer IS unpopular when compared the the NFL or MLB, but is more 'popular' (attended) than either the NBA or NHL...

In conclusion, there is a reason FIFA video games sell out...

Switching gears- ESPN broadcasts English Premier League games on Saturday at 7AM! This is set up for failure. You could broadcast a bunch of naked chicks banging each other at 7AM, and I bet you still won't have very good ratings...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no comparing anything but the marketshare each sport holds in the US. Professional soccer has failed every time in st. louis due to a lack of revenue or lack of investors to keep the funds flowing. That was the only point. The steamers had some success years ago but since then there is little revenue or financial support in st. louis. All have either failed or chosen not to continue. Fact

Fact, none of these leagues were in the same stratosphere of being amongst the best soccer leagues in the world.

Fact, one European League brings in more money than MLB does. Why aren't you comparing the best to the best in terms of leagues? This same league also therefore brings in more money than the NBA and NHL too. One league.

By your reasoning and the reasoning of some others here, one would reasonably compare the financials of the WNBA to the NFL. It's not apples to apples. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

As Nick Bakay would say, the numbers don't lie.

$425 million for WC rights on American Television. 9 figures for rights to show professional soccer leagues on American TV.

Sponsorship money, tv money(local and national) viewership. Attendance etc...all keep going up.

All of this and the U.S. Still doesn't have one of the top level leagues yet in the world.

You try to lump all of soccer together. That doesn't work. Your examples include indoor soccer and comparing it to outdoor soccer. Your examples include women's pro soccer. Your examples include minor men's soccer.

Try apples to apples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact, none of these leagues were in the same stratosphere of being amongst the best soccer leagues in the world.

Fact, one European League brings in more money than MLB does. Why aren't you comparing the best to the best in terms of leagues? This same league also therefore brings in more money than the NBA and NHL too. One league.

By your reasoning and the reasoning of some others here, one would reasonably compare the financials of the WNBA to the NFL. It's not apples to apples. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

As Nick Bakay would say, the numbers don't lie.

$425 million for WC rights on American Television. 9 figures for rights to show professional soccer leagues on American TV.

Sponsorship money, tv money(local and national) viewership. Attendance etc...all keep going up.

All of this and the U.S. Still doesn't have one of the top level leagues yet in the world.

You try to lump all of soccer together. That doesn't work. Your examples include indoor soccer and comparing it to outdoor soccer. Your examples include women's pro soccer. Your examples include minor men's soccer.

Try apples to apples.

I believe the thread is or was professional soccer in St. Louis. Correct or incorrect? So are we talking about the world or st. louis? Regrdless of the league or level of play, with the exception of the steamers for a few years, professional soccer in st. louis has failed. Fact. Until st. louis has a successful professional soccer team, your european argument is just that. A European argument. To keep returning to the example of upper tier european leagues makes no sense in relation to socceer in St. Louis or in the US for that matter. Soccer is their baseball or American football so if YOU want to talk apples to apples then talk in terms of soccer revenue and amount of US teams and fan support across the country. Otherwise, the european argument doesn't fly. Apples to apples is not soccer against baseball or leagues as you state but Soccer to soccer. It would not be fair to compare the NFL and eurobasketball league. Compare soccer to soccer and you have apples to apples. Just because soccer is the biggest revenue sport in the rest of the world, does not mean that it will be in the US. This does not mean that the interest level is not there, it just means that the US is more likely to visit and support a variety of sporting events. Can you explain why an american was trying to buy a European soccer club for a few hundred million more than he could have had an expansion club here in the US. And why canadien cities are being awarded MLS teams before US cities? St. Louis cannot even get an 18,000 seat soccer only facility built to really make a legit run at a team. The attempt was in Illinois on land that was practically free. Failed.....Fact

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the thread is or was professional soccer in St. Louis. Correct or incorrect? So are we talking about the world or st. louis? Regrdless of the league or level of play, with the exception of the steamers for a few years, professional soccer in st. louis has failed. Fact. Until st. louis has a successful professional soccer team, your european argument is just that. A European argument. To keep returning to the example of upper tier european leagues makes no sense in relation to socceer in St. Louis or in the US for that matter. Soccer is their baseball or American football so if YOU want to talk apples to apples then talk in terms of soccer revenue and amount of US teams and fan support across the country. Otherwise, the european argument doesn't fly. Apples to apples is not soccer against baseball or leagues as you state but Soccer to soccer. It would not be fair to compare the NFL and eurobasketball league. Compare soccer to soccer and you have apples to apples. Just because soccer is the biggest revenue sport in the rest of the world, does not mean that it will be in the US. This does not mean that the interest level is not there, it just means that the US is more likely to visit and support a variety of sporting events. Can you explain why an american was trying to buy a European soccer club for a few hundred million more than he could have had an expansion club here in the US. And why canadien cities are being awarded MLS teams before US cities? St. Louis cannot even get an 18,000 seat soccer only facility built to really make a legit run at a team. The attempt was in Illinois on land that was practically free. Failed.....Fact

The attempted owner of a St. Louis MLS team is the Dave Checketts of owners. Dave Checketts did not have the money to buy the Blues nor the Rams. He's good at managing other people's sports businesses. That same attempted owner did not have the money money money to own an MLS team. Period. The same as Dave Checketts does not have the money on his own to own the Rams or Blues. He needs other investors.

None of St. Louis' pro sports teams are owned by St. Louisans.

Lots of Americans have been investing in European soccer leagues because they've waited to see that it's now a multi-billion dollar league amongst the best in the world. Hey that sounds good, I'll invest there. Kroenke for example invests in both U.S. Pro soccer and in Europe. As do some others.

The best soccer leagues in the world aren't and haven't been in the U.S. Similar to other sports, fans want to see the best leagues in the world. That's why big cable companies have purchased the rights to show leagues from other parts of the world on U.S. Tv.

$425 million was spent to televise the World Cup in the U.S. Even though the last two have been in Asia and Africa, brutal times for people to watch. Why? People want to see the best.

The numbers keep going up. They go up for MLS, European Leagues, World Cup, etc...in different amounts and numbers of course based on their level of play. That's not too hard to figure out.

Minor League soccer, women's pro soccer, men's indoor soccer do not hold a candle to MLS interest, which in turn doesn't hold a candle to the world's best leagues. However, MLS, is progressing just fine. Why would I compare it to other American professional sports leagues? That isn't the issue. MLS has multiple things to work on as is the case with many leagues, but it's biggest is to get the level of play and atmosphere to be amongst the world's best. The soccer interest is there. And, the league keeps progressing. Attendance, National tv revenue. Local tv revenue, sponsorships, etc...keep going up and up. And that's for a league that's not one of the world's best.

The Rams had trouble finding investors and the NFL is big time. The Blues have had trouble finding investors. I don't see an NBA team in town.

SLU hasn't invested in its hoops program for most of its almost 200 years of existence. That doesn't mean people are interested in hoops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point on the former Yugoslavia; the Yugoslavs have emerged and excelled in basketball. Huge people in that area of the world. Most Yugoslavs are large, intelligent, athletic, fearless battlers who will never quit, though some of the nationalities within the former Yugoslavia are more than a tad better than some of the others. But I dare not go into that.

Are you going to also tell us that most Chinese are good at math? Perhaps let us know that most Jews are good at banking and business? Might as well as it appears that you like to just throw around stereotypes for the fun of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to also tell us that most Chinese are good at math? Perhaps let us know that most Jews are good at banking and business? Might as well as it appears that you like to just throw around stereotypes for the fun of it.

That is not what I was saying, I was kidding around to some extent, but it flew over your head. Not too sharp, you are.

I guess you have not noticed the influx of eastern European basketball players into the NBA. Even foo-foo liberal Courtside acknowledged it.

You are just being an assh*ole. It is your nature. You cannot help it.

You say there are no differences? Are Kenyans great distance runners? Better than say, Samoans? Answer the question, smart mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what I was saying, you are just being an assh*ole. It is your nature. You cannot help it, the lifetime loser that you are.

There are no differences?

Are Kenyans great distance runners? Answer the question, smart mouth dweeb.

Are MOST Kenyan citizens great distance runners? If I go into any household in Kenya, can I just randomly ask someone to run me a sub 3:00 marathon right away? Or, perhaps more likely, there have been many great runners from Kenya and the country has decided to focus on long distance running for some time now? It was how you made your statement that caused me to call you out. You stated that MOST Yugoslavians have specific traits that make them good basketball players. That, in essence, is stereotyping. Basically, you made a generalizing, sweeping statement about a certain ethnic group.

Earlier in this thread, you complained about people being immature and calling others names. In this post, you called me a lifetime loser and a smart mouth dweeb. Prior to that, you called me an internet tough guy who was upset about being cut from my freshmen teams. Where is your level of maturity? Yes, I have picked on many of your posts due to the basic level of inanity and absurdity contained within but I don't think I have ever stooped to your level of childish name calling. And even if I had, I never tried to prop myself up by calling others immature while gleefully throwing around insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are MOST Kenyan citizens great distance runners? If I go into any household in Kenya, can I just randomly ask someone to run me a sub 3:00 marathon right away? Or, perhaps more likely, there have been many great runners from Kenya and the country has decided to focus on long distance running for some time now? It was how you made your statement that caused me to call you out. You stated that MOST Yugoslavians have specific traits that make them good basketball players. That, in essence, is stereotyping. Basically, you made a generalizing, sweeping statement about a certain ethnic group.

Earlier in this thread, you complained about people being immature and calling others names. In this post, you called me a lifetime loser and a smart mouth dweeb. Prior to that, you called me an internet tough guy who was upset about being cut from my freshmen teams. Where is your level of maturity? Yes, I have picked on many of your posts due to the basic level of inanity and absurdity contained within but I don't think I have ever stooped to your level of childish name calling. And even if I had, I never tried to prop myself up by calling others immature while gleefully throwing around insults.

OK, pal, you bet on the Samoans, I will bet on the Kenyans in the 10K. Impeccable BS on your part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The attempted owner of a St. Louis MLS team is the Dave Checketts of owners. Dave Checketts did not have the money to buy the Blues nor the Rams. He's good at managing other people's sports businesses. That same attempted owner did not have the money money money to own an MLS team. Period. The same as Dave Checketts does not have the money on his own to own the Rams or Blues. He needs other investors.

None of St. Louis' pro sports teams are owned by St. Louisans.

Lots of Americans have been investing in European soccer leagues because they've waited to see that it's now a multi-billion dollar league amongst the best in the world. Hey that sounds good, I'll invest there. Kroenke for example invests in both U.S. Pro soccer and in Europe. As do some others.

The best soccer leagues in the world aren't and haven't been in the U.S. Similar to other sports, fans want to see the best leagues in the world. That's why big cable companies have purchased the rights to show leagues from other parts of the world on U.S. Tv.

$425 million was spent to televise the World Cup in the U.S. Even though the last two have been in Asia and Africa, brutal times for people to watch. Why? People want to see the best.

The numbers keep going up. They go up for MLS, European Leagues, World Cup, etc...in different amounts and numbers of course based on their level of play. That's not too hard to figure out.

Minor League soccer, women's pro soccer, men's indoor soccer do not hold a candle to MLS interest, which in turn doesn't hold a candle to the world's best leagues. However, MLS, is progressing just fine. Why would I compare it to other American professional sports leagues? That isn't the issue. MLS has multiple things to work on as is the case with many leagues, but it's biggest is to get the level of play and atmosphere to be amongst the world's best. The soccer interest is there. And, the league keeps progressing. Attendance, National tv revenue. Local tv revenue, sponsorships, etc...keep going up and up. And that's for a league that's not one of the world's best.

The Rams had trouble finding investors and the NFL is big time. The Blues have had trouble finding investors. I don't see an NBA team in town.

SLU hasn't invested in its hoops program for most of its almost 200 years of existence. That doesn't mean people are interested in hoops.

You talk in circles. Despite the interest level in St. Louis, professional soccer and the attemt to get it here in St. Louis fails. Fact without dispute. AAlso have not seen any non St. Louis investors attempting to put a franchise here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...