Soccer Silicon Valley Blog

The crux of her argument is that one big event does not make for sustainable growth. We've already covered this topic on the blog (ironically, it was in a response to another one of Killion's columns) and our response is largely the same now, but we have a new case study to discuss. As Killion points out, "Saturday's attendance in New York was 55,000 higher than the average for the team. In non-Beckham games, the league is still wallowing around the 12,000 mark."

First off, while New York's attendance averages around 12,000, overall non-Beckham MLS attendance is close to 15,000, which is an increase over last season. As for the spike in attendance which she inexplicably sees as a problem, here's why it's not: No one expects 66,000 fans at New York's next home game. People in MLS recognize the Beckham phenomenon for what it is, an event that's drawing soccer fans of all stripes to games, along with celebrity watchers. But if even 10 percent of those newcomers start coming back, New York doubles its average attendance to around 18,000 — which will be just about perfect for when they open their new, 25,000-seat stadium which is currently under construction.

The thing that most annoys us about this latest salvo is that Killion is familiar enough with some of the issues involved in MLS that she probably sounds credible to many readers. We find her attitude telling, however. It seems like she has it in for the league no matter what they do, no matter what sort of growth is occurring.

What would she have MLS do? If they didn't sign players like Beckham, the league would be criticized for being unambitious. So they signed Beckham. If attendance didn't increase, it would be pointed out that nobody cares about soccer. Since attendance did increase, we get her claims that it's not important, anyway.

If this is the kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude that the MLS media relations department has to contend with, I've earned a new sympathy for them. We bang our heads against that wall voluntarily, but I can't imagine having to do it for a living.

Killion wraps up her column with this:

But Beckham isn't making Major League Soccer any better (his team is still one of the league's worst), just more noticed. It seems destined to be a sort of senior league of fading stars and unambitious younger players who choose not to pursue the big leagues overseas. The soccer level is still average at best. And the most talented young Americans - as even many MLS coaches agree - need to grab whatever opportunity they can to play in Europe if they truly want to improve.

Beckham isn't making the Galaxy any better? He's started one freaking game for them! Is it possible that it's too early to judge his impact on his squad? (Besides which, if a "true believer in soccer" is going to make an assessment after watching the LA/NY game, it's going to be that Beckham improves the Galaxy. No manager anywhere is going to complain about a guy who assists on two goals in the first eight minutes of a match.)

The thing that is really telling about Killion's attitude is her bit about MLS being "destined to be a sort of senior league of fading stars and unambitious younger players who choose not to pursue the big leagues overseas." Yes, there are some aging pros here, but the majority of the US roster that won the Gold Cup this summer consisted of MLS players. MLS rosters are also filled with exciting up-and-comers like Jozy Altidore who just starred for the US at the U20 World Cup.

Besides, the league is only 12 years old. It's a bit early to start talking about destiny. It's a bit like a fourth grader bringing home a report card that says he doesn't play well with others and telling him that he is destined to become a recluse, living out his days in a cabin on the side of a mountain in Idaho.

Finally, we have one question: Is it really that difficult to recognize a growth curve? We'd all love to see MLS usurp the European soccer hierarchy and bring all the world's best players here, and we think it might even happen in 20 years. Right now, though, if Lew Wolff or Phil Anschutz or any other MLS owner decides they want to pull a Chelsea and spend half a billion dollars on players, they'd lose their shirts because there's no infrastructure to support that investment. MLS has a $150 million TV contract (their biggest ever, by the way, and that was signed before Beckham) that continues for a few years. Some MLS teams have their own stadiums, but not all of them, and spending that kind of money doesn't make sense unless you control enough of the ancillary revenue streams to recoup your investment.

MLS is growing and it's growing wisely. Killion's column would have been timely if it had appeared 30 years ago, when the NASL was about to succumb to its own orgiastic spending. As it is, all she has are cynical, baseless criticisms of a sport she claims to love.