Here is what I said:
“Americans constantly tell me that owners of sport franchises in the US will insist on making money. If that really is the case, then I predict that MLS will collapse, and probably sooner rather than later.”
Here is here the headline from Kevin McCauley reported on SB Nation
” ‘Soccernomics’ author says MLS’ collapse is imminent.”
So here are some other news stories, as reinterepreted by Kevin:
On nuclear weapons
“China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.”
= “China announces it will attack the US using nuclear weapons”
On the California drought:
“If the state continues on this path, there may have to be thoughts about moving people out, said Lynn Wilson, academic chair at Kaplan University”
= “Wilson says California to impose forced emigration”
On aliens
“Professor Hawking said:…If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
= “Hawking says humanity will suffer same fate as native Americans”
LOL
|
|
I understand what you’re trying to say, but your metaphors aren’t accurate. You said that MLS will collapse if the owners insist on making money. But the sentence before that you essentially say that this is what the owners in America do. So you’re justifying your thought that MLS will likely collapse, and even said “sooner rather than later”. So obviously that’s what the SBNation whatever writer got the word “imminent” from. And he claims you think the MLS will collapse, because you justified your prediction with the first sentence.
Now the proper way to format your metaphors would be:
“The general consensus is that the U.S.will attack China during a confrontation over Taiwan. Everyone says it will happen. China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.”
= “China says it will attack the US using nuclear weapons”
Yeah it’s somewhat clickbait, but it’s not like they’re completely making something up from nowhere. It’s been established that the U.S. will attack China. That’s how it was presented.
You did the same thing. You made an argument based on a premise that American owners need to make money. So people who read this interpret it as a premise that is accurate, because otherwise why even bother with the argument? Why even make an argument with a premise you don’t believe in? Although, that’s what you did. You based your whole argument on one premise you got from something “Americans constantly tell you.” So while it’s Kevin’s fault for interpreting your premise as fact, it’s your own fault for making an argument on a fragile premise without facts. Why get so passive aggressive about something that was interpreted as it was because you based an argument on basically nothing? Don’t get upset because you said something without doing your research…
You’re missing some background detail I think. I have long said that MLS will be unprofitable, largely because that is the global experience with this sport- I don’t think America is different. But in the rest of the world owners are willing to tolerate losses for the glory, and so leagues not only survive, but are thriving. I really don’t think American owners will end up being any different- but many Americans tell me that’s because I don’t understand Americans.
I get it…you’re saying that the MLS owners will not insist on making a profit because if they really did so, the league would collapse because the league will not make a profit.
This does not mean that you are predicting the league will collapse, you are predicting that the owners will not insist on making money.
It’s all about the TV revenue. Especially once expansion is done. Spending on players has to increase dramatically, but will the TV revenue also grow dramatically (in 10 – 20 years) to allow the owners to earn a profit?
I think the profit motive may kill MLS’s stated goal of becoming a top-4 league. But do we really need to have a top-4 league to have entertaining matches and a means of developing national team talent? I think the answer is no.
Stefan,
For us fans then the motivations and intentions of the current MLS owners become an all important issue worthy of a study in its own right.
Problem is they know what their motivations and intentions are and we don’t. Asymmetric information. So we look to see what they are signaling through their actions.
Take the Kraft Group, owners of the Revolution (disclosure: I’m a Revs fan). The Krafts are reportedly leading a strong effort to build a soccer specific stadium in downtown Boston. Even with city subsidies, that would require a significant investment on their part. Would you look at this stadium effort as the Krafts signaling a medium to long term commitment to the team and the League?
Thanks.
Yes, depending on the amount of finance involved and the alternative uses for the stadium in the event of MLS failing, this kind of commitment can be taken as a statement of intentions. Kraft has always indicated he has an interest in soccer and had discussions about in investing in Liverpool a while back. Given his wealth, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be willing to absorb the kinds of losses indicated by MLS for a very long period of time. But then, I don’t believe making a profit is a prerequisite for a successful league.
😀
Maybe the headline was not his idea. And there is a strong tendency for headlines to be clickbaits, regardless of the content of the article (haven’t red this one, so I don’t know). It is annoying, I know, and on a few occasions I insisted to be signed only by initials (had that option), when I was really unhappy with clickbaits under which my articles were to be published.
Then again, if people are not clicking on it, the whole thing is more or less, at least for the professional media, pointless. While as long as the article corresponds with what it is reported on, it still can be described as ethical.