So, As Fans, Who Do We Root For?

[Fantazma]

dont matter, this years edition of the tournament is dead to me now that we are out

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

WTF are you talking about?????? The single entity structure is the only way this league could have survived until now and this won't be changing. Do you think that if MLS and their teams were run independently and were able to spend what they want on players without a salary cap and without any type of restrictions that teams like Columbus or FC Dallas, or any other small market could have survived?????? NO WAY, it would have been NASL all over again, folding while a couple of clubs brought in all of the talent.

The single entity structure works beautifully for the NFL, and they are doing just fine, and have been doing even better since Roger Goodell came in, and that is from a league that has no competition whatsoever from anywhere all over the world. I swear people just do not understand how HARD it is to run and operate and grow a soccer league in this continent, holy shit. SMH....The single entity structure is not the problem with MLS, it is some of the player acquisition rules, that players such as Herc Gomez, and many others have complained about.

These rules will be changing as we continue to grow but to say that we should appreciate the Cosmos blah blah blah, are you kidding me? Appreciate them, why? because they play in a glorified beer league and have MLS rejects and former MLS scrubs on their roster, and current MLS players that are not wanted by their current MLS team so they loan them out. The Cosmos like to act like big dogs in the soccer scene here in NYC but in reality their league, and their team, is irrelevent until they join MLS.

And by the way to say that the Cosmos said NO to MLS is a huge lie. Here is a comment from EOS from a poster named Ullrich over a year ago about the Cosmos saying no to MLS, and now you have Eric Stover their COO saying we never wanted to join MLS, because with MLS' structure you can't compete on the global football scale, please spare me the BS.

Ulrich 06/15/2015 at 11:32 pm I’m still trying to figure out how the hell the Cosmos were in a position to turn down MLS? MLS has always had a business plan to be run as a single entity structure, and the Cosmos wanted to be part of MLS just with the caveat to not be bound by the salary cap and to be run independently. Essentially it was like vinegar and water – neither would be able to mix. And the Cosmos also didn’t want to have to pay the new “buy-in” fee that was approaching $70M+ when the previous club came in at about $40M. How do I know that? I had many a conversation with the former Cosmos Chief Marketing Officer and we discussed the attempt by their power structure to become the 20th MLS franchise. It was ALWAYS the team’s goal to be in MLS – that’s why the Marketing/Advertizing agency Anomaly was brought in: to sell the team’s potential to the league; Anomaly actually had an ownership stake in the team, which made their efforts all the more important for success. Now to most of you this is just hearsay, and that’s fine because I freely admit my conversations took place over drinks and not in a formal meeting room, so believe me or don’t, but unless you were in the MLS/Cosmos meetings and/or have the minutes from them, just stop with the fictitious notion that the Cosmos turned their back on MLS. Granted, there was no question MLS was interested in the Cosmos because of the name & the ties to NYC in the 70’s/80’s, but they were not ever going to change the league’s structure to accommodate a single potential team owner when there were many more ownership groups eager to join up; evidently, one that was willing to pay $100M. So back to the Cosmos and their supposed negotiations from a position of power (to evidently ultimately spurn MLS according to revisionists)…. The NASL reboot was in 2009. If the Cosmos actively wanted to be part of the NASL, they would have done so immediately instead of being an unaffiliated club attempting to negotiate their way into MLS from 2010-2012 when they ultimately joined the NASL. Even when they announced the buyout from Kemsley to Sela in Nov 2011, they included a snippet in the press release that MLS was their ultimate goal. Granted, the Cosmos website has removed the said new release (because it legitimizes their attempt to join MLS) but the following link (from the next day) has the release in italics: http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/new_york_comos_announce_management_buyout So somehow the Borough Boys all believe the Cosmos closed the door on MLS when in reality the club was focused on MLS & announced: “It is unequivocally the goal of the current ownership to become an MLS team in the most expedient manner possible, and decisions for the club will be made with this in mind.” Of course, after Joe Fragga said this he was soon fired and the revisionist history of the club’s goals began. Why else would the club & its fans be so excited settling for the NASL when MLS had always been the goal?

Well, it is true that, at one point, the Cosmos harboured ideas of joining MLS. I am aware that the Cosmos negotiated with MLS in order to somehow join while not fully participating in the single-entity structure.

And MLS, quite expectedly, said "no", as they couldn't very well give one team some rights that other teams don't have. So the team's goal was not consistent with the league's policy; for this reason the negotiations ended. Still, until the very end, the Cosmos had the option of changing their policy, and paying the expansion fee that CFG eventually paid in order to create NYCFC. So it is not incorrect to say that the Cosmos walked away from the deal.

And it's true that, without single entity, there could have been no league in 1996. What this means is: the U.S. was not ready for a Division I league in 1996. The league had to be created as a condition for the U.S. getting the World Cup in 1994. So they came up with that artificial means to sustain it, even though it was an unethical scheme for depressing salaries. Unfortunately, the single-entity structure survived a court challenge, as U.S. courts look very kindly on ripping off workers.

The right time to start a top-flight league is when there are enough owners who are willing to own teams, and actually compete with one another. That was not 1996; but it probably would have happened 10 to 15 years later. Instead we had the first decade-plus of a pretend league, in which teams had no independence. The player acquisition rules that stymied Herculez Gomez are a function of this absurd system of single entity, which re-creates the bad old days of baseball's reserve clause. Those rules would be clear anti-trust violations in any other league (which is precisely the reason that MLS sought and received judicial approval for its structure: to get away with practices that would otherwise be illegal).

The single-entity structure, in which the league employs the players, and in which teams' investor-operators all own shares in the league, is offensive because it undercuts competition. And the idea of a single investor-operator having interests in multiple teams is outrageous on its face. Every football fan who rejected MLS on that basis was entirely correct to do so. As time has gone on, teams have become more like independent entities -- indeed, it is only for this reason that quality ownership groups like CFG and the Cosmos' ownership are even interested; and it is only for this reason that football fans who had formerly sneered at MLS can now tolerate it. But we still even have one owner, AEG, which owns more than one team! That is straight-up embarassing. In a real league structure, it would be scandalous, as it was in baseball back when the National League got rid of it in the 1890s. But in the goofy world of MLS, it continues.

I see also that you have revived the myth that "the Cosmos destroyed the NASL". To say that the Cosmos did anything to harm American soccer is fundamentally upside-down. In fact, the Cosmos did it all the right way. They had a well-capitalised owner in Warner Communication's Steve Ross who was willing to subsidise the non-profit-making team for quite some time. Furthermore, this was an owner who was motivated primarily by his appreciation for the game. You cannot ask for a better owner than that.

What the NASL needed were a few (just a few!) more teams like the Cosmos, teams owned by big corporations such as the entertainment giants Warner. Instead, what it got was many (too many!) more teams owned by local consortia of dodgy nobodies, cheesy pipsqueak fly-by-nighters who needed immediate infusions of TV rights money and further expansion fees (neither of which, in the end, were forthcoming) in order to pay their bills.

So the thing that actually destroyed the original NASL was rapid expansion. More precisely, it was the fact that they let in as ownership groups every lemonade-stand operator who could (barely) pay the expansion fee, without regard for how well capitalised these groups were, or for how they could withstand operating expenses.

It is spectacularly wrong to blame the Cosmos for any harm to U.S. soccer. In bringing together their many important, well-known players, the Cosmos created not only success on the field, but also a buzz, a sense of "happening" around the club. Thanks singlehandedly to the Cosmos, soccer attained a position of legitimacy in the U.S. sporting culture that has never again been equalled.

The Cosmos set the standard. If the other teams had followed this model, the league would never have folded, and we would have a different world. We would right now be anticipating the 50th season of the NASL in a couple of years. The league would have grown at a reasonable pace from 10 or 12 teams to a size similar to today's MLS, and would be amongst the world's best. The Cosmos and the Sounders, in continuous operation, would be as big as the biggest clubs in Europe.

We as fans would be commenting on internet message boards about how the NASL shootout is a superior method for deciding matches after extra time, and we'd be keeping track as other competitions inevitably adopted that system. We'd be discussing how the 35-yard-line puts a premium on passing skills; and we'd be proud that this ethos, having trickled down to all levels of soccer, has produced a characteristic American style that is beautiful. And the NASL, being the league that exemplifies that style, would be full of talented American players who had been groomed in it, in addition to Brazilians and Spaniards who would find it much to their liking.

Perhaps, owing to the worldwide interest in this great league, there would exist not multiple Champions Leagues arranged by continent, but instead some kind of joint CONCACAF-UEFA yearly tournament that would allow the Cosmos and Sounders to take their place alongside Man United, Juventus, Bayern, Barcelona, etc.

But, no. Instead of seeking competent, motivated, well-capitalised owners in the Warner mold, the NASL in the 1970s accepted expansion fees from an array of flimsy nonentities, and predictably fell apart. This ain't the Cosmos' fault.

The Cosmos did their part to show the right way; but the other teams failed to follow. Anyone in the U.S. who enjoys soccer today owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Cosmos, upon whose shoulders we all stand.

 

[sbrylski]

Well, it is true that, at one point, the Cosmos harboured ideas of joining MLS. I am aware that the Cosmos negotiated with MLS in order to somehow join while not fully participating in the single-entity structure.

And MLS, quite expectedly, said "no", as they couldn't very well give one team some rights that other teams don't have. So the team's goal was not consistent with the league's policy; for this reason the negotiations ended. Still, until the very end, the Cosmos had the option of changing their policy, and paying the expansion fee that CFG eventually paid in order to create NYCFC. So it is not incorrect to say that the Cosmos walked away from the deal.

And it's true that, without single entity, there could have been no league in 1996. What this means is: the U.S. was not ready for a Division I league in 1996. The league had to be created as a condition for the U.S. getting the World Cup in 1994. So they came up with that artificial means to sustain it, even though it was an unethical scheme for depressing salaries. Unfortunately, the single-entity structure survived a court challenge, as U.S. courts look very kindly on ripping off workers.

The right time to start a top-flight league is when there are enough owners who are willing to own teams, and actually compete with one another. That was not 1996; but it probably would have happened 10 to 15 years later. Instead we had the first decade-plus of a pretend league, in which teams had no independence. The player acquisition rules that stymied Herculez Gomez are a function of this absurd system of single entity, which re-creates the bad old days of baseball's reserve clause. Those rules would be clear anti-trust violations in any other league (which is precisely the reason that MLS sought and received judicial approval for its structure: to get away with practices that would otherwise be illegal).

The single-entity structure, in which the league employs the players, and in which teams' investor-operators all own shares in the league, is offensive because it undercuts competition. And the idea of a single investor-operator having interests in multiple teams is outrageous on its face. Every football fan who rejected MLS on that basis was entirely correct to do so. As time has gone on, teams have become more like independent entities -- indeed, it is only for this reason that quality ownership groups like CFG and the Cosmos' ownership are even interested; and it is only for this reason that football fans who had formerly sneered at MLS can now tolerate it. But we still even have one owner, AEG, which owns more than one team! That is straight-up embarassing. In a real league structure, it would be scandalous, as it was in baseball back when the National League got rid of it in the 1890s. But in the goofy world of MLS, it continues.

I see also that you have revived the myth that "the Cosmos destroyed the NASL". To say that the Cosmos did anything to harm American soccer is fundamentally upside-down. In fact, the Cosmos did it all the right way. They had a well-capitalised owner in Warner Communication's Steve Ross who was willing to subsidise the non-profit-making team for quite some time. Furthermore, this was an owner who was motivated primarily by his appreciation for the game. You cannot ask for a better owner than that.

What the NASL needed were a few (just a few!) more teams like the Cosmos, teams owned by big corporations such as the entertainment giants Warner. Instead, what it got was many (too many!) more teams owned by local consortia of dodgy nobodies, cheesy pipsqueak fly-by-nighters who needed immediate infusions of TV rights money and further expansion fees (neither of which, in the end, were forthcoming) in order to pay their bills.

So the thing that actually destroyed the original NASL was rapid expansion. More precisely, it was the fact that they let in as ownership groups every lemonade-stand operator who could (barely) pay the expansion fee, without regard for how well capitalised these groups were, or for how they could withstand operating expenses.

It is spectacularly wrong to blame the Cosmos for any harm to U.S. soccer. In bringing together their many important, well-known players, the Cosmos created not only success on the field, but also a buzz, a sense of "happening" around the club. Thanks singlehandedly to the Cosmos, soccer attained a position of legitimacy in the U.S. sporting culture that has never again been equalled.

The Cosmos set the standard. If the other teams had followed this model, the league would never have folded, and we would have a different world. We would right now be anticipating the 50th season of the NASL in a couple of years. The league would have grown at a reasonable pace from 10 or 12 teams to a size similar to today's MLS, and would be amongst the world's best. The Cosmos and the Sounders, in continuous operation, would be as big as the biggest clubs in Europe.

We as fans would be commenting on internet message boards about how the NASL shootout is a superior method for deciding matches after extra time, and we'd be keeping track as other competitions inevitably adopted that system. We'd be discussing how the 35-yard-line puts a premium on passing skills; and we'd be proud that this ethos, having trickled down to all levels of soccer, has produced a characteristic American style that is beautiful. And the NASL, being the league that exemplifies that style, would be full of talented American players who had been groomed in it, in addition to Brazilians and Spaniards who would find it much to their liking.

Perhaps, owing to the worldwide interest in this great league, there would exist not multiple Champions Leagues arranged by continent, but instead some kind of joint CONCACAF-UEFA yearly tournament that would allow the Cosmos and Sounders to take their place alongside Man United, Juventus, Bayern, Barcelona, etc.

But, no. Instead of seeking competent, motivated, well-capitalised owners in the Warner mold, the NASL in the 1970s accepted expansion fees from an array of flimsy nonentities, and predictably fell apart. This ain't the Cosmos' fault.

The Cosmos did their part to show the right way; but the other teams failed to follow. Anyone in the U.S. who enjoys soccer today owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Cosmos, upon whose shoulders we all stand.

You guys are making well reasoned posts regarding the ideological identities of the two parties, but ultimately, I think it's much simpler than all this.

Peppe Pinton owned the Cosmos brand, spent a lot of money protecting it, and valued it so highly that multiple wealthy bidders were rejected. Point is, we don't know how much he ended up selling it to Paul Kemsley, but it was a lot.

The feel good story is that Pinton hand selected Kemsley has "the one" to carry the brand, but he failed quickly and was ousted. So either bad choice by Pinton, or the real story is that Kemsley was just the first person to actually meet his price demand.

In any event, the entire value of the team was in their branding, and it was purchased for millions. Yet, MLS has a policy of absorbing all intellectual property of new clubs, or rejecting the old IP and starting from scratch. This is the only disconnect that matters, the two parties were never going to be a match.

MLS would be charging the Cosmos a premium expansion fee for the NY market, plus completely wipe out the group's brand value. Which of course the Cosmos would reject - you don't pay millions for something and then give it away five years later.

The Cosmos are a BRAND more than a soccer team, and MLS literally does. not. buy. IP. Whole thing was dead in the water, and Kemsley was an idiot for thinking otherwise.

Background reading: http://narrative.ly/stories/rebirth-of-the-cosmos/

 

[S1ARK5]

Well, it is true that, at one point, the Cosmos harboured ideas of joining MLS. I am aware that the Cosmos negotiated with MLS in order to somehow join while not fully participating in the single-entity structure.

And MLS, quite expectedly, said "no", as they couldn't very well give one team some rights that other teams don't have. So the team's goal was not consistent with the league's policy; for this reason the negotiations ended. Still, until the very end, the Cosmos had the option of changing their policy, and paying the expansion fee that CFG eventually paid in order to create NYCFC. So it is not incorrect to say that the Cosmos walked away from the deal.

And it's true that, without single entity, there could have been no league in 1996. What this means is: the U.S. was not ready for a Division I league in 1996. The league had to be created as a condition for the U.S. getting the World Cup in 1994. So they came up with that artificial means to sustain it, even though it was an unethical scheme for depressing salaries. Unfortunately, the single-entity structure survived a court challenge, as U.S. courts look very kindly on ripping off workers.

The right time to start a top-flight league is when there are enough owners who are willing to own teams, and actually compete with one another. That was not 1996; but it probably would have happened 10 to 15 years later. Instead we had the first decade-plus of a pretend league, in which teams had no independence. The player acquisition rules that stymied Herculez Gomez are a function of this absurd system of single entity, which re-creates the bad old days of baseball's reserve clause. Those rules would be clear anti-trust violations in any other league (which is precisely the reason that MLS sought and received judicial approval for its structure: to get away with practices that would otherwise be illegal).

The single-entity structure, in which the league employs the players, and in which teams' investor-operators all own shares in the league, is offensive because it undercuts competition. And the idea of a single investor-operator having interests in multiple teams is outrageous on its face. Every football fan who rejected MLS on that basis was entirely correct to do so. As time has gone on, teams have become more like independent entities -- indeed, it is only for this reason that quality ownership groups like CFG and the Cosmos' ownership are even interested; and it is only for this reason that football fans who had formerly sneered at MLS can now tolerate it. But we still even have one owner, AEG, which owns more than one team! That is straight-up embarassing. In a real league structure, it would be scandalous, as it was in baseball back when the National League got rid of it in the 1890s. But in the goofy world of MLS, it continues.

I see also that you have revived the myth that "the Cosmos destroyed the NASL". To say that the Cosmos did anything to harm American soccer is fundamentally upside-down. In fact, the Cosmos did it all the right way. They had a well-capitalised owner in Warner Communication's Steve Ross who was willing to subsidise the non-profit-making team for quite some time. Furthermore, this was an owner who was motivated primarily by his appreciation for the game. You cannot ask for a better owner than that.

What the NASL needed were a few (just a few!) more teams like the Cosmos, teams owned by big corporations such as the entertainment giants Warner. Instead, what it got was many (too many!) more teams owned by local consortia of dodgy nobodies, cheesy pipsqueak fly-by-nighters who needed immediate infusions of TV rights money and further expansion fees (neither of which, in the end, were forthcoming) in order to pay their bills.

So the thing that actually destroyed the original NASL was rapid expansion. More precisely, it was the fact that they let in as ownership groups every lemonade-stand operator who could (barely) pay the expansion fee, without regard for how well capitalised these groups were, or for how they could withstand operating expenses.

It is spectacularly wrong to blame the Cosmos for any harm to U.S. soccer. In bringing together their many important, well-known players, the Cosmos created not only success on the field, but also a buzz, a sense of "happening" around the club. Thanks singlehandedly to the Cosmos, soccer attained a position of legitimacy in the U.S. sporting culture that has never again been equalled.

The Cosmos set the standard. If the other teams had followed this model, the league would never have folded, and we would have a different world. We would right now be anticipating the 50th season of the NASL in a couple of years. The league would have grown at a reasonable pace from 10 or 12 teams to a size similar to today's MLS, and would be amongst the world's best. The Cosmos and the Sounders, in continuous operation, would be as big as the biggest clubs in Europe.

We as fans would be commenting on internet message boards about how the NASL shootout is a superior method for deciding matches after extra time, and we'd be keeping track as other competitions inevitably adopted that system. We'd be discussing how the 35-yard-line puts a premium on passing skills; and we'd be proud that this ethos, having trickled down to all levels of soccer, has produced a characteristic American style that is beautiful. And the NASL, being the league that exemplifies that style, would be full of talented American players who had been groomed in it, in addition to Brazilians and Spaniards who would find it much to their liking.

Perhaps, owing to the worldwide interest in this great league, there would exist not multiple Champions Leagues arranged by continent, but instead some kind of joint CONCACAF-UEFA yearly tournament that would allow the Cosmos and Sounders to take their place alongside Man United, Juventus, Bayern, Barcelona, etc.

But, no. Instead of seeking competent, motivated, well-capitalised owners in the Warner mold, the NASL in the 1970s accepted expansion fees from an array of flimsy nonentities, and predictably fell apart. This ain't the Cosmos' fault.

The Cosmos did their part to show the right way; but the other teams failed to follow. Anyone in the U.S. who enjoys soccer today owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Cosmos, upon whose shoulders we all stand.

Wow, impressive well thought out response. I do disagree with a lot of what you said here, to me there is just so many "what ifs" in your reasoning that its hard not blame the Cosmos. Let's just agree to disagree on this. I for one absolutely loathe the Cosmos and their franchise, especially these new team calling themselves the Cosmos at Hofstra. The truth is, that they could have went into MLS abiding by all of the rules like everyone else, instead of the we are the Cosmos we do what we want etc etc mentality that basically made MLS say "piss off"....but their ego got to them and now they are stuck in the middle of nowhere. By the way I firmly believe the Cosmos will be in MLS eventually.

 

[S1ARK5]

You guys are making well reasoned posts regarding the ideological identities of the two parties, but ultimately, I think it's much simpler than all this.

Peppe Pinton owned the Cosmos brand, spent a lot of money protecting it, and valued it so highly that multiple wealthy bidders were rejected. Point is, we don't know how much he ended up selling it to Paul Kemsley, but it was a lot.

The feel good story is that Pinton hand selected Kemsley has "the one" to carry the brand, but he failed quickly and was ousted. So either bad choice by Pinton, or the real story is that Kemsley was just the first person to actually meet his price demand.

In any event, the entire value of the team was in their branding, and it was purchased for millions. Yet, MLS has a policy of absorbing all intellectual property of new clubs, or rejecting the old IP and starting from scratch. This is the only disconnect that matters, the two parties were never going to be a match.

MLS would be charging the Cosmos a premium expansion fee for the NY market, plus completely wipe out the group's brand value. Which of course the Cosmos would reject - you don't pay millions for something and then give it away five years later.

The Cosmos are a BRAND more than a soccer team, and MLS literally does. not. buy. IP. Whole thing was dead in the water, and Kemsley was an idiot for thinking otherwise.

Background reading: http://narrative.ly/stories/rebirth-of-the-cosmos/

great points but in order for the Cosmos brand to grow and to increase in value they will need to come to MLS. As I said earlier, the NASL will NEVER compete with MLS. If the Cosmos stay in the NASL they are pretty much stuck in league that offers them very little except the chance to get a CONCACAF birth via the US Open Cup.

 

[FootyLovin]

I'd never root for another team other than my own. Go to a few road matches and witness the shit that we have to deal with and I promise you will never say another nice word about these teams. Fuck Cosmos and Philly after the way they treated us.

I do not condone fighting. That said I'm not sure what we should expect in Philly when they put the SSs next to each other. Even at Cosmos I was right next to their SS and could clearly hear (and loved) our supporters all the way across the field chanting "we can't hear you". Priceless.

But I suspect that if YS put the away supporters right next to or even within hearing distance of our supporters and if they had a small (Philly) or nearly nonexistent (Cosmos) police presence then there'd be some bad shit going down.

I blame the teams for that as much or more than the fans.

 

[Robinson Santi]

I hate both teams, but I rather see njrb win ONLY if we beat them this weekend. We had our B Squad play during the cosmos, NJRB will have their A Squad. They played their good players last game, so why not do it again? Especially because they are home and won't be worried about the turf. I honestly think the RB will destroy them, and they should because we could of easily destroyed the Cosmos too if we played the same lineup and formation we've been using in the last 3 MLS matches. Cosmos winning this whole thing will just make them more annoying about how our league is weak compared to them.