Genius in action

If you hadn't heard, Jose Mourinho beat Bayern Munich yesterday to win some relatively large soccer tournament. Jose's legend exploded into the realm of the ridiculous in the immediate aftermath, with his qualities as a coach, brilliance as a tactician, and magnetism of personality all fodder for the type of hero worship the likes of which we haven't seen since Douglas MacArthur departed Japan.


If it weren't for 250 million oblivious Americans and cricket-obsessed India, Mourinho would be a shoe-in for President of the World. Mourinho's triumph launched a thousand glowing columns and blog posts the way Helen's face launched a thousand ships, each looking for new ways to describe the brilliance of a man who single-handedly destroyed the Spanish empire of Barca on his way to another Champions League title. The fact that he looked so dapper doing it; well, he's not The Special One for nothing.


Mourinho's dominance of the headlines, garnering so much attention as a coach and not a player, is a testament to the force of his personality as much as his tactical brilliance. Sure, Mourinho beat the greatest attacking team the world has ever seen (oops, that was a month ago) with his defensive-minded game plan before repeating the feat against the Germans. But that alone can't be responsible the flood of words spent bathing the man in syrupy accolades, can it?


Even if it is, Mourinho's status as the preeminent figure in Inter's wonderful season despite the presence of world class players in the team is a rare departure from the usual distribution of attention. There is no direct comparison, since such an example would need to be a man who was recognized as both genius in the ways of the game and a hypnotically charming yet pompous narcissist of the highest order.


Is Mourinho one of a kind? Yes, undoubtedly. There is only one Mona Lisa, after all.


Our traditional American sports are littered with legendary coaches recognized for their genius. Lombardi was ground-breaking innovator and unparalleled leader of men. Stengel managed his collection of egos and bit players masterfully in New York. In more recent times, Joe Torre, Phil Jackson, and Bill Belechick have each been given the crown of "greatest coach in the history of everything". Yet none of them approach Mourinho's combination of ego, charisma, and ability. Torre is a good manager but ultimately a bore. Jackson brings little to the table beyond new age philosophies and the ability to win when he has basketball's best player. Belechick is a strategic genius who intentionally avoids saying anything interesting, ever.


Who then? Two men come to mind. While neither could hold a candle, relatively speaking, to Mourinho's tactical genius, both coached championship teams and had personalities bigger than the game itself.


The two candidates:


Red Auerbach



Auerbach's success was built on choosing the right players more than strategy; always ahead of his time in the former regard, the legendary Boston Celtics coach racked up title after title because he had a special ability to find talent. His larger-than-life personality is legendary, and even when he was no longer coaching the Celtics himself he was still seen as the man responsible for the club's success.

Auerbach may never have reached Jose's stratospheric level of combined magnetism and coaching reputation, but they definitely share a certain quality.


Mike Ditka



Iron Mike was never known as a strategic guy; Mike's greatness lied in his motivational abilities. It may even be wrong to call Ditka "great", since he was really just the lucky recipient of a dominate Bears defense with the genius of Buddy Ryan backing him up. But Ditka did have an impressive ego and a polarizing persona that more often drew people to him than pushed them away. Perhaps most in favor of Ditka being Mourinho's closest American parallel is the "Superfans" of Saturday Night Live, who regularly hypothesized that Dit-ka would defeat entire teams by himself. Even if Ditka couldn't actually defeat teams this way as Mourinho can, the simple fact that the possibility was discussed puts Ditka closer to Jose than anyone else.


These American coaches, who plied their trade in sports that pale in comparison to the beautiful game, are nothing when juxtaposed to the supernova Jose Mourinho. His star burns so bright now that it only makes sense for him to move to the club of the Galaticos; even there, surrounded by gaseous giants Ronaldo and Kaka, he will dominate the sky, causing their stars to fade next to his blinding brilliance.

Taking a cue from Ginge (which I try not to make a habit of), I've decided to address some TV news just released today; per Fox, the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final will be broadcast on their over-the-air flagship station, and ESPN has announced that a deal with Fox Sports International will allow them to broadcast 83 English Premier League matches, up from the 48 shown this season.


Wow. That's pretty exciting stuff if you're a fan of the European game, and the UCL announcement alone has many buzzing about the potential rating the match could do. Between ABC's broadcast of the England-USA World Cup match and the Champions League Final, 2010 should be the biggest ratings year in the history of soccer TV in America.


But as Ginge points out, there's a disappointing issue with all of this; while Americans can now watch more European (and therefore top class) soccer than ever before, domestic league matches are frustratingly far less available. Sure, you can buy the league's Direct Kick package if you'd like, or pony up a smaller fee for the Internet version; but as more and more Americans discover the sport, it's worrying that they can watch a foreign product much more easily than our own American league.


I get it. I understand why English football is popular here in the States, and I generally don't blame fans for gravitating to the richest league in the world. The language is the same, the players are recognizable, and quality of play is obviously top notch. I also don't blame ESPN, FSC, or any other television concern for leveraging American interest in English soccer. Still, I have to wonder if all of this Euro love is stunting American soccer.

"Here in the US, it's easier to watch an EPL match than it is to watch a match in our own domestic league."

Ginge Talks The Footy

MLS will always remain a second class citizen in the United States as long as it's taking a back seat to leagues from distant shores. While the lack of visibility and money constraints are the major reasons for that situation now, television will play a large part in the future. Though watching the English game (thanks to the time difference) doesn't preclude people from watching MLS as well, the juxtaposition of the two does the American product no favors.


Some of the blame for the situation certainly falls to MLS. Ginge believes MLS has been ineffective in marketing themselves; I think that's true to a point, though I'd argue that the league's hands are tied in many cases. At least they're making money from television now.


I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited for more EPL matches in HD on ESPN and a Saturday Champions League Final on Fox. But there's a part of me that wonders if the explosion of European soccer coverage in the US is doing more harm than good; while it's nice that our soccer-playing kids can now watch the best in the world do their thing (and hopefully pick up a thing or two), it won't matter if our domestic league can't gain enough traction to be a proper place for those kids to develop and play.


TV money is the lifeblood of any professional sports league. MLS needs more, but it's the European leagues that are getting the most exposure.

English sides
An EPL side has featured in the final of the last five competitions. Even more impressive is the fact that 9 of the last 12 semi-finalists have also hailed from England. It may be boring and repetitive for neutrals, but what it really shows is the total dominance the league's teams have held over the continent in the last few seasons. With Ronaldo now gone, and none of the Big Four having really strengthened their teams over the summer break, this could well be the season that that the Premier League's strangehold on the competition is loosened.

However, for the large part, the teams look to face little difficulty in the group stage of the competition. Arsenal have the pick of the draws, only having to overcome a Belgian, Greek and Dutch team to progress, while Chelsea and Liverpool's groups - although trickier - should not pose too much of a threat to their progression.

Manchester United's group is a bit tastier, though, thanks to its Eastern European edge. Travelling to Istambul to face Besiktas will be daunting, especially as it comes just days before the Manchester derby. The match against Moscow involves a 1,500 cross-continent plane ride, while Wolfsburg, the German champions and strongest 4th seed, complete the group. Not easy at all. If I had to pick one of the EPL sides to fall at the first hurdle, it would be the Red Devils.

"Who are ya?"
This year's draw was memorable, if only for the fact that it created a new personal record: I had never heard of four of the teams, while for another five I could tell you nothing about them other than their name. That's nearly 30% of the participants of my continent's premier competition that I have little or no knowledge of.

How could this happen? How can teams like Apoel Nicosia, Debrecen, Rubin Kazan and Unirea Urziceni get into a tournament reserved (in theory) for the best 32 teams in the continent when clubs like Roma, Tottenham, Celtic, and Schalke didn't? While I'm pleased that such minimal teams get much-needed attention and money, it really isn't good for the competition.

Yes, these clubs won their respective divisions, but the days when the Champions League was a league solely for champions has long passed. Similarly, the days when Hungarian and and Russian (etc.) clubs were European powerhouses has also passed. We want the best teams in Europe competiting for the ultimate prize - not hand-outs for 90 minutes of fame to the Cypriot champions. That's what the Europa League is for.

Group(s) of death
While the English sides look certain to progress, excusing a potential Manchester hiccup, the rest of the continent's elite look set to battle it out in a number of intruiging ties: Bayern Munich and Juventus in Group A, AC Milan and Real Madrid in Group C, Barcelona and Inter Milan in Group F... through a handful of Ukranian, French, Swiss and Portugese champions into the mix and you have quite an appetising competition, even excluding a seemingly inevitable EPL-dominated second-round.

Hollywood drama
There were two real stories just waiting to be told as the (excessively complicated) draw was being made. Neither, unfortunately, came to be. The first involved a shy, unassuming Portugese winger and his potential return to play in Manchester. The second was an Inter-Chelsea match-up, which would have placed Inter Milan coach Jose Mourinho against his former club, and Chelsea coach Ancelloti against his former club's fiercest rivals.

The disapointment that neither scenario materialised is lessened by the realisation that, far from rule out the match-ups completely, the luck of the draw merely postponed them until the more intense latter stages. Can't wait.

The full draw

When I say "Champions League", what comes to mind?

Yesterday brought with it the return of the UEFA Champions League and the start of the group stages of the CONCACAF Champions League. The former is a massive competition often pitting clubs with worldwide followings and rosters full of well-known names against each other in cracking atmospheres; the latter is a hint of a joke of a shadow of its European cousin, pitting Mexican and small or unknown North and Central American clubs against each other in front of mediocre to flat-out pitiful crowds.

If I was able to (damn job), I'd watch every game of both. I'm just like that; I don't discriminate, and while Columbus hosting Puerto Rico in front of 5,000 (a guess, and I think I'm being generous) doesn't quite carry the same excitement as Celtic hosting Arsenal in front of 61,000, I find each enjoyable in its own way. Still, I'm very aware the the UEFA version trumps the CONCACAF one for a vast majority of fans.

But I'm also aware that without these early years of small crowds and budget-minded teams, the CCL will never come close to earning the prestige that its big brother across the Atlantic possesses. It would help, of course, if more of the teams participating from my league, MLS, would take it seriously (or better yet, had more ammunition with which to do battle), but for the time being this is just the way it is. The CCL will not become the UCL overnight. I state the obvious because it needs to be stated; while impartial fans across the US and Canada likely flipped by one or more of the UEFA Champions League games yesterday (if they were lucky enough not to be working), I'm guessing not so many took a peek at the Crew's win over the Islanders or DC United's implosion in Honduras.

I don't blame them, not really. I understand there's not much attraction to the CCL for American fans, especially when both the clubs and players give all indications that the tournament is more of a burden than a blessing. Champions League soccer for an MLS club doesn't bring the money and respect that it does for a European one; this means that more than something to be celebrated, or a trophy to win, the competition is just more games packed into an already bulging schedule, games which stretch thin rosters and lead to injuries and fatigue. In a cost benefit analysis, there's just not that much benefit.

From Steven Goff's Soccer Insider blog, the words of United's Santino Quaranta:

"You would hope that we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot by winning that game" against Firpo in the Champions League preliminary stage, a result that sent DCU through to group play and added six games (and three long road trips) to the schedule. "If we wouldn't have had that schedule, it would look pretty good for us."

Some would argue that international tournaments that reward the winner with a pass to a world event are more important than league play.

"I don't buy it," he added. "I guess it is. It's important to the club and it's important to the people here -- we're taking it seriously -- but for me, the league has to be [the priority], right? What good is it to play in this tournament if you don't make the playoffs? To me, it doesn't make sense."

But teams exist to win trophies. That's the ultimate goal of any club, no matter the level of prestige the trophies at play possess. It's unfortunate then, when MLS teams head into tournaments with a less-than-full throttle mentality; the Champions League, if for no reason than because of its name, should be a major focus. Of course, thanks to the realities of scrimp-and-save MLS, it's not.

So how can we blame the fans for not showing up or tuning in?

I won't blame you if you pass on watching any CONCACAF Champions League action. I won't get angry or self-righteous about putting our version first, or giving it the same attention that you probably do the UEFA version. I may wish that you would, but I can't possibly defend saying you should.

But hey, if you have a moment, just flip by, would ya? One day, it might actually be a big deal.

I know what you're thinking:

You're thinking that I never talk European soccer in this space, and you're a little confused as to why I would bring up Fox Soccer Channel's recent purchase of the U.S. rights for the UEFA Champions League.

Let me explain.

After the jump of course.

I recently (in fact, only a few moments ago) watched the president of Fox Soccer Channel outline a fairly audacious plan for those newly acquired right; those plans include distribution of Champions League matches across various Fox outlets, online distribution of those matches (a la ESPN 360), and an HD version of Fox Soccer Channel to roll out by the end of 2009.

Big time stuff, and all of it is exciting for Americans who love the biggest of European club tournaments. I'm certainly among those, and I'm happy to hear about the changes that FSC will be making. Outlets for soccer in the U.S. are few and far between, and FSC in HD sounds like a dream come true.

But a question at the back of my mind continues to nag...

Where does MLS fit in with all of this?

Will our domestic league suffer because more and more of the European game is available to fans who are quick to dismiss MLS anyway? What about those people who might not yet appreciate the game, but could be enticed to follow soccer by FSC's distribution of Champions League matches? Would those same people embrace Major League Soccer, or reject it out of hand as so many, including some individuals involved with FSC do?

I realize these are difficult questions, ones without clear answers.

I'm probably just overreacting; although it sounds like FSC is making the Champions League the centerpiece of the network's offerings, that does not necessarily mean that they will neglect their coverage of MLS.

It just means there is one more think to compete with, one more thing that will make our domestic competition pale in comparison.

Share your thoughts and let me know what (if anything) you think this means for FSC's relationship with the American version of the game.