It's hard to believe, but 2016 marks two important 20th anniversaries in the North American sports landscape. The WNBA is celebrating its 20th season of play, while we're actually in year number 21 of MLS, which began play in 1996. Neither one will ever reach the level of the Big Four leagues, but the fact that they've both reached the 20-year mark is significant.
How many leagues have tried to catch on and failed? Arena football? It's down to eight teams. The USFL? Three seasons. And, for all the success of the U.S. women's national soccer team, where on what number attempt at a professional women's soccer league? Yet these two have survived. At times they've even thrived. And it doesn't look like either one is going anywhere anytime soon.
Let's start with the WNBA. It was founded on the heels of UConn's first undefeated championship and the dominant 1996 U.S. Olympic team. There were actually two women's basketball leagues that kicked off at the same time, but the WNBA had a couple things the ABL didn't: the NBA's backing, NBA arenas in major cities, and the big names. At the beginning the quality of play in the ABL might've been a little bit bitter, but that league folded in 1998 and the WNBA is still going strong.
The WNBA will never be on the same level as the NBA or any of the other men's leagues. They know that and they accept that. But the WNBA has also filled an important gap that had been missing for entirely too long. The top players in women's college basketball don't have to go to Europe anymore (although, most still do since the money's better there and they play a different season). And, more importantly, girls in this country who want to be professional athletes have something to strive for.
Sure, there have been some bumps in the road. Of the eight original teams, only three are still in existence in their original market (the New York Liberty, Los Angeles Sparks and Phoenix Mercury). They've folded a couple franchises, including a Houston Comets team that won the first four WNBA championships, and moved some others. But they've found a business model that works, and they've enjoyed a reasonable amount of success.
They've also found a league size that works well, as they've been holding strong at 12 teams for the last couple years and I haven't heard any talk of expansion. They're smart about where they play, too. No longer are WNBA franchises the sister teams of their NBA counterparts. There's a team in Connecticut, which obviously draws a lot of support from the preexisting UConn fan base. When the Sonics went to Oklahoma City, the Storm stayed in Seattle. (Although, I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity by not having a team in Nashville.)
Another stroke of genius was to move out of the NBA arenas. WNBA attendance will never approach NBA-type levels, so playing in those half-empty 20,000-seat arenas doesn't look good and doesn't make much sense. So why not go to smaller venues? Fill an arena that sits 8,000-10,000. You've still got the Liberty playing in Madison Square Garden and the Sparks playing at the Staples Center, but that's balanced out by the Chicago Sky and Dallas Wings playing at local colleges, or the Connecticut Sun being the main show in town at the Mohegan Sun Arena.
You can point to attendance figures and TV ratings all you want (the WNBA does need a better TV deal), but you can't argue that the WNBA hasn't been a rousing success. The NBA's backing certainly has helped, but the WNBA hasn't lasted two decades on that alone.
And, like I said, the WNBA isn't going anywhere. The biggest names from the best college programs stay at home, and they're also the ones that make up the U.S. national team. You get to see them play past college other than once every four years in the Olympics.
I don't think there's a person out there who wouldn't argue that the WNBA has made the game of women's basketball better as a whole, either. It's not the richest women's basketball league out there, but the quality of play is absolutely top-notch. And the best players in the world come to play in the WNBA, simply because of the competition. Lauren Jackson is the biggest name that comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.
As for MLS, it's never been stronger than it is right now. They're sitting at 20 teams, with plans to expand to 24 within the next few years. There are even teams in the three biggest cities in Canada! MLS, too, endured its growing pains, but it's in a good place right now. They've got a great TV contract with ESPN and Fox Sports. They've got soccer-specific stadiums that get filled. Most importantly, they're no longer considered a joke or a passing fad. Not by the fans, not by the players, and not by the soccer world.
David Beckham and Thierry Henry and David Villa certainly helped bring credibility to MLS, which will never rival the Premier League or Bundesliga or any of those top leagues in Europe. But the quality isn't poor in comparison, either. More importantly, the U.S. National Team, for the most part, has improved as MLS has improved. These guys get a chance to play competitive professional soccer at home, and they don't have to travel great distances for national team duty. Sure, some of the top Americans still play in Europe, where the money is better. But, you've also seen how many Americans leave their European team for MLS (and more playing time)?
There are things about MLS that FIFA and the rest of the soccer world are never going to like/accept, but they're also things that would be difficult, if not impossible, to change. The second league's not comparable enough to have promotion and relegation (which is one of the many reasons that wouldn't work here). We use playoffs to determine our champions here (sorry Europe, I know you don't want to hear this, but the Champions League is playoffs, too). We can't play in Toronto and Seattle and Colorado in December and January (there's also less going on in the summer, when MLS doesn't have to compete with the NFL and college football).
Considering how nuts people get during the World Cup, it was probably inevitable that MLS would build a reasonably strong fan base. And I still find it funny that MLS is still nowhere near as popular as the Premier League, which NBC shells out millions a year to televise, or the Champions League. I'm not sure that'll ever change, though, and I think MLS accepts that. As long as people are watching and coming to games, it really doesn't matter.
Will MLS ever get to the level as the Big Four? Probably not. But this country has finally gotten the memo about soccer that the rest of the world has already had for a while. It makes sense that MLS eventually caught on, even if it did take a while.
FIFA might've made USA Soccer start MLS as a condition for getting the 1994 World Cup, but the league has succeeded on its own merits. Once they stopped trying the gimmicks that simply didn't work and just played the game pure, MLS has helped America figure out why the Brazilians call soccer the "beautiful game."
Maybe the timing was right. Maybe the U.S. national team's rise coinciding with the rise of MLS is purely coincidence. Or maybe it's because the players are better and there are more of them. But whatever it is, MLS isn't destined to end up like the NASL. The league has never been stronger. And, like the WNBA, MLS is here to stay.
No comments:
Post a Comment