Normally a mid week game at tiny Buck Shaw Stadium in Santa Clara attracts a small crowd of diehard fans to watch their San Jose Earthquakes in action.  However, this past Wednesday night saw a nearly full house turn out to watch the Black-and-Blue take on a struggling Chicago Fire side that was winless over their last seven games.  Instead of a comfortable win over Chicago, as many commentators — myself included — predicted prior to kickoff, the Earthquakes were taken apart by the Fire 3-0.  Matching their worst loss of the season, the Quakes did little on the field to impress the many new faces that sprinkled the Buck Shaw crowd.  Nowhere to be seen was the club that had played with poise and confidence during a 5-1-1 streak this month and last.

The dawning of a new era in Major League Soccer, one in which New York can outspend everyone and acquire a trio of high-priced talents, has inevitably created a bit of worry. "Parity" has for so long been the overriding principle of the league that one must wonder how the relaxing of the DP rule might affect the competitive balance. NFL-bred Don Garber is now in charge of a league that is creeping out of its fifteen-year old box; where the league is headed, and if that direction might create a top-heavy competition or an NASL-style downfall, is suddenly the question du jour.


Steve Davis is concerned, Clemente Lisi floated a question, and Tom Dunmore outlined the disparity between the new MLS reality and Don Garber's all-for-one background. Dunmore's piece provides framing and prompts natural questions while Lisi and Davis are more direct in their insinuations that MLS is playing with fire by letting loose the purse strings. For the latter two, perhaps years of observing MLS and watching the league go through pains to get where it is today, combined with the shadow of NASL (which Lisi evokes throughout), makes skepticism natural.


And I'll admit, even as I'm exhilarated that MLS is lurching forward dramatically, I wonder if it might be too much, too fast. Luckily, there are a few facts that make this MLS version (what are we on now, 2.5? 3.0?) a far cry from the NASL. In fact, I laid out some reasons for that belief in a post for Four Four Two just last week. Even the question of competitive imbalance is up in the air, with the second half of the 2010 season giving us our first glimpse at a flashier MLS and what it might mean on the field.


I get it, it's scary. Money is going out the door at an alarming rate in some cities while others sit on the sidelines and might be marginalized because of it. But only time will tell if Red Bull's spree will bear fruit, if LA is destined to dominate the league, or if Chicago's gambles will pay off. Three pricey stars, the maximum any team can assemble, guarantees nothing; this is especially true with the uncertainty of the playoffs looming over everything.


I run hot and cold on the need for parity in MLS. As a practical matter, I believe that LA and New York need to be good for the league to gain more national prominence. That might mean smaller markets suffer competitively, but smart management and good coaching can turn even the league's "poorest" clubs into contenders. Never has success on the field guaranteed success at the box office. Winning matters, but marketing soccer in America is a tricky proposition even when a club is scoring goals and threatening for titles.


I hardly think parity will go out the window with a sudden burst of spending limited to a few players per team. Nevertheless, MLS has moved further away from "Parity Above All" in 2010 than ever before. Will the fears be realized?


Expect more backlash, both of the even-handed Steve Davis-type as well as the more indirectly inflammatory Clemente Lisi-type as the "new" MLS shakes out.

If someone with zero knowledge of Major League Soccer took a quick look at the league standings after seven weeks of play, they might notice a few things: One, the LA Galaxy are the best team in the league, and two, the collection of mediocre teams is thick on the ground.


Four teams with ten points (all in the West, by the way), two with nine, one with eight, and two with seven; that's half the league within three points of each other, all battling it out in the second tier of clubs (or third if you put the Galaxy in their own tier). The idiosyncrasies of the league schedule add an element of cloudiness to the assessment, but nevertheless, there seems to be a shakeout occurring. There will likely be two or three teams better than everyone else, then a collection of clubs cannibalizing each other, then a group of poor teams taking a beating from the rest of the league.


Functional parity, in a nutshell.


What parity doesn't, or can't ever, do is create a league where every team is essentially the same. Coaches range in quality. Front office staff, the decision makers signing players and drafting young talent, range in quality. Systems, consistency, form, etc., all range widely in quality and application. Major League Soccer teams are hardly carbon copies of each other, no matter salary and roster restrictions.


But it does serve to create a clump of mediocrity, that much is clear. The differences between FC Dallas, Chivas USA, the Rapids (all with ten points) and several others, are slight; matches among this group comes down to form on the day, a call here or there, and a lucky break or two. Depending on the situation, this can either mean exceedingly boring slugfests or hotly contested games breaking one way or the other on a handful of crucial moments. The MLS fan existence boils down to hoping for the latter while dreading the former; detractors of league-mandated parity might argue that there should never be acceptance of mediocrity, though the situation creates more uncertainty, the very essence of following any sport, than exists in many other leagues. Where some competitions need upsets and shock results to provide weekly spice, MLS relies on complete uncertainty because it's often unclear which side is the better one.


The outliers, like the Galaxy at the top and DC United at the bottom, are what make parity palatable. For good or bad, MLS relies on parity to engage fans, even out the relative financial health of the league, and to prevent clubs in the biggest markets from running away from the rest of the pack. Playoffs might lessen that advantage, but there's a strong chance it would be season after season of one or two clubs battling it out for regular season supremacy.


Sure, fans of those teams would like that, but what about everyone else? Would there be enough intrigue in the playoff race to give people reason to show up or watch on TV? Professional soccer in the US doesn't have a historic base to rely upon, generations of supporters ready to watch their team play no matter their prospects from year to year. Practically speaking, it makes sense to pull the richest teams down while propping up the not-so-rich in a league built on the idea that everyone is in it together. MLS worships at the parity altar because it provides cost certainty, with the added benefit of giving fans across the country reason to believe their team can win; until there's reason no longer reason to worry about the financial aspect, nothing will change.


Widespread mediocrity: a distasteful pill to be rejected at every turn, or acceptable condition that ensures evenly-matched games from week to week?


This must be one of those "in the eye of the beholder" things...

If I'm counting correctly, six MLS teams came into the new season with a different head coach than they had in 2009. Hans Backe took over in New York after Richie Williams finished out last year for the fired Juan Carlos Osorio, Carlos de los Cobos took over for Dennis Hamlett in Chicago, Toronto's revolving door stopped on Preki, whose previous team, Chivas USA, promoted Martin Vasquez, and DC United hired Curt Onalfo, who was fired by Kansas City late last season.


If you'd like to count Peter Vermes as a new head coach because he took the reigns with the Wizards late last year, I suppose we can throw him into the mix.


Of the head coaches that lost their jobs in 2009, we can say with certainty that two of them did so because of poor performance; Curt Onalfo and Juan Carlos Osorio (Osorio technically resigned, but did so under immense pressure that amounts to a firing), neither of whom did finished out the season.


Denis Hamlet was also fired, an odd decision considering that the Fire were only penalty kicks, and a Nick Rimando goalkeeping clinic, away from the MLS Cup Final.


The reason for the departure of the remaining names is slightly more difficult to ascertain; conventional wisdom says that Preki was pushed out in the name of "change" rather than for failing to live up to expectations. It's likely that Preki tired of his Chivas USA situation, wanted to leave, and was allowed to do so by the club. A parting of ways "by mutual consent" is how it was termed in the press.


In DC, the company line was the Tom Soehn removed himself from consideration after the expiration of his contract; while it's likely that he was asked nicely to do so, there's enough ambiguity cloud the issue. Either way, Soehn wasn't publicly fired.


Neither was Chris Cummins at TFC, who took over for the frustrated John Carver early in the 2009 season. Officially, Cummins resigned and left the club because his family was unable to secure Canadian visas; again, it's possible that backroom dealings pushed Cummins out and that he might not have returned for 2010 even if he had wanted to, but there's no real way to be sure. Even if Toronto failed to meet their goal of reaching the playoffs for the first time, it doesn't appear that Cummins was actively relieved of his duties by the team.


Six changes and two out-and-out firings for poor performance; though the turnover of head coaches might indicate MLS has just as much pressure as any other competitive league, there are more than a few reasons to believe otherwise.


Two factors in the MLS equation make head coaching jobs here much more stable: parity, which ensures that almost every team has a chance of at least making the playoffs year to year, and the playoffs themselves, which represent some measure of success and could be enough to let an under-performing coach keep his job.


Because financial success is not directly tied to on-field success (or is more correctly less tied to it than in other leagues around the world), owners and club management have less pressure to replace a coach for a bad run of form. Add that a last place finish is just a last place finish and relegation isn't in play, and we can hardly expect team officials to change head coaches at a clip similar to leagues abroad. In-season firings are even less common, with clubs willing to stick out disappointing seasons rather than make a change; the firing and hiring of coaches costs money, and with budgets already stretched to the limit around the league, even a few thousand dollars spent buying out a contract or giving an interim coach a raise is distasteful.


There are a few exceptions to the rule, namely the big markets of New York and LA. The Galaxy signed the most expensive player in league history, have one of the highest profiles in MLS, and therefore have a higher pressure top spot than almost anyone else. New York's big market status creates a similar pressure cooker, only ratcheted up this season by the opening of Red Bull Arena. Additionally, the New York and LA jobs are therefore more appealing than most, giving those clubs a chance to extend their searches wider than the bulk of MLS teams; this means the installed coach will feel more pressure to get the job done, lest he be dumped for a more qualified replacement. Big money ownership allows those club flexibility other clubs just don't have.


No coach ever possesses complete job security, but it would be incorrect to apply the usual standard, that the man in charge is always just one bad result way from losing his job, to Major League Soccer. Frank Yallop wouldn't have lasted this long in San Jose. Curt Onalfo wouldn't have been given three years in Kansas City. Schellas Hyndman's stay with FC Dallas might already be over. Fernando Clavijo would never have lasted so long in Colorado.


But MLS is a different animal, one with unique rules and quirks that have direct effects on things like the amount of time a head coach is able to keep his job despite losing. Next time you wonder why a coach isn't on the hot seat, or appears safe even when you're not sure he should be, keep in mind that in Major League Soccer, the winds of change are slow to blow.


For me, it's actually just a little too bad - coaching intrigue is fun.

Back to this again. Manchester United's third straight Premier League title has me thinking about parity, and its role in American soccer. United's championship illustrates that a league with no controls will produce predictable and redundant results more often than not; it's simply beyond most clubs to compete for a top four spot in England, much less challenge for the title.

There just doesn't seem to be much intrigue after awhile.

My question then, living in a country where the top flight league dictates parity through salary and roster controls, is whether that parity ensures intrigue; does every club having a (somewhat) equal chance to lift the trophy make the season more interesting overall?

It's a cop out, and for that I apologize, but I simply don't know. My gut tells me it should, but my eyes don't confirm that suspicion. Major League Soccer's rules are so overbearing and heavy-handed, that I wonder sometimes if it's more "forced mediocrity" than anything else.

Without big or dominant clubs in MLS, the league becomes a wash of uninteresting results, with draw on top of draw (running 40% of results this season). Even the best team in any given year is unlikely to finish with an overwhelming record, simply because the level playing field makes them only slightly better than the league's also-rans. Add playoffs to the mix, and you get MLS 2008; a team with what can only be described as an "underwhelming" record makes the final, frustrating those of us who hope to see the best teams compete for the cup.

I'm generally not a dynasty kind of guy. It bugs me when a team (other than my own, of course) runs off a string of titles. I hate the idea that every season's end is a foregone conclusion, with the balance of play only serving to sort out the details. The EPL frustrates me for that very reason.

I realize that I'm arguing both sides here. I seem to be in possession of a very "have my cake and eat it too" attitude; I want great teams without the annoying problem of the same one winning every year. I want the league to rise above the mediocrity and provide class teams at the top, teams capable of winning not only MLS, but the available international competitions.

Is that too much to ask? Is there a balance to be struck, or are we stuck in this rut, with parity holding play back yet ensuring that the same club doesn't take home the title season after season?

The English Premier League season, more often than not, reaches a point sometime in early spring when the club who will be the eventual champion is easily identified. The intrigue at the top of the table is whisked away, and the league becomes truly interesting only at the bottom.

Major League Soccer maintains an up and down, lead-changing dynamic throughout the majority of the season; and again, because of the playoff structure, which team finishes with the most points and wins the Supporters Shield is only part of the story. Is that intrigue? I suppose. But too often, the mediocrity of it all overshadows any excitement built through parity.

I have no answers. In fact, I originally wrote most of this post on Sunday, the day after Manchester United secured their title. I was planning on posting it then, when this idea was fresh in my mind; but I held off in the hopes that I would have some conclusion to draw, rather than a bunch of half-cocked ideas. Oh well. Maybe you guys can work it out for me.

Is parity better than predictability? Does the relegation battle make up for the lack in intrigue at the top of the EPL table? Is MLS "boring" because parity means draw after draw?

by Chris Nee of twofootedtackle

There may well come a time when either pressure or circumstance leads Major League Soccer to scrap the idea of parity in order to improve quality and make clubs more competitive on the international stage. But my advice, having watched the Premier League develop into a predictable and relatively dull beast, is enjoy it while you can. That's not to say I believe parity is the future of MLS, but that the internally competitive nature of the league is worth soaking up before it's removed.

A little while ago I posted to my own site about the domination of the Premier League's notorious "Big Four" in England. Their persistent presence in the top four spots in the table is, in my opinion, very damaging to English football. I'm a football addict and I'll watch any football, anywhere, anytime. I also just happen to support a Premier League club. And yet I have little time for the league itself. If my team were relegated, God forbid, I'd find it hard to justify watching it at all.

As always, it comes down to money and the long-term possession of money. Manchester United have a huge fan base and have brilliantly marketed the club over the last two decades. Liverpool have fans and history, both of which foster revenue streams. Arsenal and Chelsea are, perhaps, a little different. In recent years, the Gunners empire has been built on the back of a superb managerial appointment and some wonderful signings. Chelsea's success has resulted entirely from financial strength.

Of course, once a club of such strength reaches the top, it stays there. And that, along with the general obsession with cash, is why the Premier League is boring.

So it was with interest that I listened to Jason's discussion about parity on the Match Fit USA podcast. It's an interesting concept, and one defined by a number of methods which are often mentioned in philosophical arguments about how to make European football more exciting, but will never be feasible. We'll never have salary capping, drafts or central ownership. The status quo is too dominant, having grown over more than a century.

The situation is very different in the United States, for obvious reasons, and creating a league from scratch requires parity in the beginning - without it, the league just never gets off the ground. But the dichotomy between forced parity and the evolution of "quality" is an argument destined to haunt Major League Soccer for years to come. The idea that any team can win the league in any given season, based on college draft picks and salary capping, is a very American one.

I don't mean to be out of line here, but you guys are used to that way of working. You're comfortable with it, it's what you know.

But bubbling under the surface is a growing concern that Major League Soccer is hamstrung by its own policy. MLS fans, quite naturally, want the league to be a world player. Native supporters are used to MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL dominating their sporting worlds. Soccer is a different matter. The world powerhouse is European football, dominated currently by England and previously by Spain and Italy. Germany and France have strong leagues, and the Netherlands isn't far behind. Elsewhere, Argentina, Brazil have leagues which overshadow MLS globally.

That said, I don't think MLS should abandon parity - at least not yet. It's partly that I'm jealous. Betraying my loyalties, I'm far more likely to be celebrating a DC United win in MLS Cup than a Premier League win for Aston Villa, and that annoys me. It must be difficult, in a nation of sporting excellence and Eurosnobs, to accept Major League Soccer's place in the football pecking order and enjoy it for what it is, but trust me, a level playing field is something many English fans desire above all else.

One day, a Major League Soccer comprising 22 or 24 clubs might draw the crowds and have the stability to gamble on its place in world football. It might even be absolutely necessary to do so. With clubs in flux (by this I specifically mean FC Dallas, who struggle for attendances, and DCU who still have the stadium issue hanging over them), the league is purely and simply too young to abandon its model. It may happen, but until then make the most of parity. It's not all that bad.

Chris shares his views on all things football at twofootedtackle, and produces a weekly podcast of the highest quality with co-host Gary Andrews.

On the most recent Match Fit USA podcast, Nathaniel Baker of American Soccer News and I discussed the issue of parity in Major League Soccer. Specifically, we talked about Nathaniel's notion that while early results indicate a gap between the good and the bad in 2009, parity is still the law of the land, and things will get back to normal shortly.

We also discussed (forced) parity as a concept, and whether MLS is suffering or benefiting because of it.

It's a difficult question to answer, and one that splits those who are fans first from those who appreciate the business concerns of the league.

It's definitely a tricky question, though it may not seem so on the surface. Parity means more teams with a chance to win every year; the assumption is more fans will remain interested as long as parity reigns.

I'm not so sure that's the case.

In the U.S., we have working examples of both schools of thought: the NFL strives for parity, levelling the field through salary caps and other restrictions, while Major League Baseball maintains a more free-market mentality, allowing its richest teams to spend at will.

Both are wildly successful, both draw millions of fans, and both have a license to print money; this fact makes it difficult to see either as a potential guide for MLS. What to do? Use enforced parity to cast the widest net possible for fans but hamstring attempts to improve quality, or let the biggest clubs spend the most, possible alienating fans of smaller clubs?

Hmmm...

MLS has its reason for the salary cap, player-movement restrictions, and travel rules (which are a different story and should be dropped immediately). They're mostly valid, mostly defensible, and mostly appropriate. Nothing is likely to change for a very long time (think ten years or more), so maybe it's not even worth thinking about.

But what if?

What would MLS looks like if all of those parity-ensuring rules were thrown out the window?

Would New York and LA dominate, spending more than other teams by factors of ten?

Would New York and LA even be the teams that would most benefit from having the shackles removed?

Those teams in their own stadiums or with favorable (or free) leases would be ahead of the game immediately; without the albatross of a poor stadium situation (poor DC) handing around their necks, those clubs would simply be able to carry more of a salary burden than other clubs.

Most likely to benefit the most? In the short term, those aforementioned big clubs, plus Seattle, Toronto and maybe one or two others. But I don't believe the gap would be so large as to completely skew the competition; the playoffs (assuming they remain in place for the foreseeable future) would allow for the possibility of a magical run for a smaller-budget team.

Perhaps that's the key, and the trade off that MLS fans should hope for: as nice as a single table would be, I'm more than willing to forget about it if the crushing financial restrictions are removed/lessened. Imagine a league with teams able to spend on reasonable talent, but with competitive balance still maintained to a degree thanks to the playoff structure.

Wouldn't that be nice?

The bottom line for me is this: everyone, and I mean everyone, involved in Major League Soccer is aware of the NASL shadow that hangs over soccer in America. At what point does the league finally decide that the owners "get it", that self-restraint on their part is a given as long as that NASL elephant sits in the room, and that the league cannot continue to grow without a bit of spending?

Don't get me wrong. I understand why the league exists in its current form. I understand why owners and teams are handcuffed by overly restrictive salary rules. I understand why every contract is league-owned, why the allocation list exists, and why willy-nilly spending is strictly prohibited.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

At some point, MLS and it's investors are going to have to let these teams stand on their own two feet. Forced parity just seems so...un-American.

I may have not come within a mile of coherent thought at any point, but I'd love to get your thoughts.

Is forced parity good for the long term health of the league, or a outdated concept that now holds it back?

I've got family obligations today, so I don't have time to spit out my usual thousand words of nonsense. Instead, I simply want to pose a question. I hope to have a review/commentary that relates to the question sometime in the near future:

Does it benefit MLS to attempt to maintain parity within in the league, or would soccer in the U.S. be better served by having one or two "superclubs"?

Just to frame the question a bit, I'll note that teams in the largest media markets would certainly be the leading candidates for this "superclub" status (LA Galaxy and Red Bull New York top of mind). If these teams were allowed to use their full resources to attract talent and market themselves, the profile of the league might be elevated. Parity, on the other hand, insures that fans all around the league can believe that their side can win MLS Cup every year, possibly aiding attendance throughout the league; but parity also insures a kind of across-the-board mediocrity which may hold back the entire endeavor.

I'm still fleshing out my thoughts on the matter, so I'll hold back on giving my opinion now; feel free to rant if you feel the urge.