The UEFA Champions league....Cash Cow.

   This weekend is the start of the footballing season across Europe. A few leagues such as the Premier league (England) and Ligue 1(French) have already had their inauguration games. A couple of games in then that vexatious international break never fails to arrive. All that being said not far away is the champions league is about to begin! To be more specific, the UEFA Champions league group stage is about to begin. Which is where the issue seems to be dormant for the time being. The group stage is probably the worst part of the whole tournament, coming a close second is the economic result of the Continental tournament heavily favoring the pockets of the big clubs. The new fixture for the 2018-2019 is a sign on how much negotiation power the bigger clubs have. (Gab Marcotti from espn does a great job at describing the new decisions made by UEFA   http://www.espnfc.com/blog/marcottis-musings/62/post/2930404/uefa-champions-league-structural-changes-as-explained-by-gab-marcotti). Aside from the money and redundant group stage with similar teams and soon to be common teams the champions league is a fantastic tournament. The best players, managers, and play is displayed for the world to see in champions league. But, the group stages are getting me fed up and just boring. ( I am aware of reasons behind the group stage commercial and sporting wise) The entertainment is just not cutting it for me. The excitement doesn't begin for me until January when the group stage is over and the knockout phase begins. It is a bit of a rant, but as a fan of the game I can and will complain about the games structure. Now I understand the game cannot go back to the Di Stefano days where only the first place team from the league is given entry to the tournament. Barcelona and Real Madrid, if one of those teams misses out it would be a huge commercial and financial lost for a lot of people. But wouldn't it be more exciting if Manchester City had a home and away knockout game vs AJAX or Porto vs Real Madrid in the same knockout format? there would have to be stages as well to compensate the bigger teams. Which is done in the knock out cups in most leagues anyways such as the Copa Del Rey. Where the weaker teams play each other in a knockout stage before they reach the round of 32 in which that is where the first division teams are seeded. I will continue to watch the champions league it is a fantastic and entertaining tournament to watch. I just feel that the hiccups that is the group stage went from okay it happens to now it is just annoying stage. I understand that the champions league is a cash cow, but no matter how rich that cow gets, it is still a cow and not very fun to watch for 7 months.

Let there be drugs at the Olympics

   The 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio is finally here! The opening ceremony commences tonight. The excitement of the games will be displayed on television for the world to watch. Who wins gold, silver, or bronze. Which country can boast the most medals. How many Olympic records were broken and by who? The excitement of the games are amplified with these questions at the fore front of our minds while we watch phenomenal athletes compete. Every four years we are entertained and fascinated. Yet, it feels like after, during, and even before the games start there is a scandal that reveals the cheaters and breaks the hearts of the many fans. We weren't let down this year, Russia made sure of that. Impressive I must admit. A systemic method in place to beat the test for doping. I confess that I believe that performance enhancing drugs should not play a part in any sporting event. Especially something as traditional and historic as the Olympics. Why? They work. EPO, AA-steroids and HGH are a few drugs used by athletes to get that competitive edge. Now I am on the side of the playing field should be leveled and fair, but it is not. And the drug testing police are failing miserably. 

   There is a lot of money that goes into these programs that require expert scientist in their respected fields along with lab equipment to police the many athletes that compete in the games. There is a debate in that alone, whether enough money is being distributed to these programs to work or are they just a waste of money and time. I read an article from VICE sports that from all the testing that is done on these athletes only 1% are ever caught. That number seems really low, which in favor of the test state is a great sign. Athletes are cheating less. However, that is a bit naive to think considering athletes are always willing to push the limits and are risk takers by their natural characteristics. In that same article there was a survey taken by athletes in an anonymous fashion that revealed that over 40% of athletes were on some PED and over 80% have used PEDs at least once. Those results are pretty shocking given the fact that only 1% of athletes that take PEDs are caught. In fact, most of if not all of the big PED scandals has come from a whistler blower. BALCO and biogenesis and so on have all been due to a person going to the press. To this day Lance Armstrong has not tested positive on any drug test he has taken. My professor who taught sports philosophy and ethics showed us a calendar from a cyclist he knows very well. That calendar had all the big cycling events he was going to compete in, as well as when to inject or draw out blood during his training regiment. This cyclist no Lance Armstrong, yet he still is doping just to get that competitive edge. He is ranked 170 in the world at the time I was in class. I did not get a name so I do not know whether he improved, did worse, or got caught. 

   With that being said and shun a bright light on, I can't ignore the fact that these athletes are not only good at beating each other in competition, but are pros at beating these drug tests. The real threat to these athletes is the drugs they take. These are not FDA approved drugs, in fact who know what else is added to the PED in order to "mask" them from being detected. Those who provide these drugs are not doctors, they are "some guy from the gym or streets" which is terrifying. Simple answer is for athletes to not take them. Which is easier said than done, when Olympic glory is on the line and there is only a 1% chance of getting caught those odds are really great odds in favor of the athlete.    

   My solution would be to let the drugs flow at the Olympics. Those athletes taking PEDs would still be able to compete as long as they reported what they were using and remain under doctor supervision throughout the year. The athletes who prefer not to take PEDs wont have to feel forced to because they will know who is on them and who isn't. The drug testing will still take place for ALL athletes in competition. However, this time if an athlete is caught there is no punishment. It will be a notification and a reporting on what supplements are being taken. That would hopefully eliminate any other criminal activity that is associated with doping. As for the competition itself both types of athletes should compete side by side. The fascination and awe of a PED free athlete beating an athlete on steroids would cause more of a positive outlook on the sport than the gold medalist being stripped of his or her medal due to a positive drug test. Now that being said there would have to be two forms of earning a medal in an event. A set for non doping athletes and another set for the doping athletes. But for now we shall enjoy and watch the games with fascination and skepticism.    

Copa America in America?

   The 100 year anniversary of the Copa America was celebrated in the United States. This was the first time the south american soccer tournament was held outside of the south american continent. Congratulations to Chile on winning the tournament. There is plenty to discuss after the tournament concluded. What made this tournament unique was that both the north and south american national teams took part. Due to the success of the tournament there has been rumors about making this Copa America tournament permanently played with both the North and South American teams in it. A tournament held in the United States every fours year during the summer. Alejandro Moreno former soccer player and now sports analyst was not too found of this idea of a merger tournament. The cup of Americas is meant to stay in South America because it is a South American tournament is Moreno's main and for the most part only argument against the idea. Unfortunately I will go against Moreno's wishes and lets discuss of the possibility of a merger tournament between the North and South American Continents. For the merger to take place the two soccer federations from the north (CONCACAF) and south (CONMEBOL) must sit down and negotiate financial terms as well as the footballing terms. To save time I will discuss the footballing aspect of this fun discussion. The host of the tournament should not always be the United States. I agree that the United States is the best equipped country to host a tournament of this magnitude at the moment and in short notice. But, by making the United States a permanent host it goes against the reason for allowing North American nations participate in a South American tournament. It would make the Copa America into the Copa 'Murica. The Copa America is suppose to be a tournament that celebrates ALL THEE AMERICAS.
    The CONMEBOL has 10 national teams while the CONCACAF has 41. However, the South American teams tend to be much more competitive and better quality in their play than their northern neighbors. Surprisingly the CONCACAF is more than just the United States and Mexico. The tournament should include all ten south american soccer nations with automatic bids for US soccer and the Mexican national team. The remaining four spots should be decided on qualifiers designed by the CONCACAF.  In total there will be sixteen teams divided into four groups of four with the top two from each group advancing into the quarter finals. The set up would be very similar to the successful format that was used this summer for the 2016 Copa American 100 year edition. It worked. One of the main talking points behind the merger besides the money is that it will benefit the smaller nations more. I disagree with that notion due to the fact that I ask HOW? The smaller nations will have a very difficult and competitive qualification process ahead of them just to make the tournament. CONCACAF has 41 nations in its federation competing for 4 spots. Allowing more spots for the actual summer tournament by increasing it from 16 to 20 or 24 might not result in a good tournament. It leads to the potential of increasing pointless boring group stage games with teams that are bearable to watch. The top two teams from the CONCACAF is Mexico and the United States. Would those two teams even be competitive enough to matter in a tournament such as this one? The latest results from this past summer is that both CONCACAF giants are not ready, Mexico lost to Chile by a margin of 7 goals while the United States didn't fair to well against Argentina in that 4-0 lost.
   At the moment I don't see the Copa America becoming into a western hemisphere power tournament. There are too many questions such as who qualifies for the Confederations Cup? Can other nations host a tournament of this magnitude? And what about the Gold cup? In all, the merger seems like a great idea that is possible in the distant future, but at the moment it is just that, a fun idea.  

MLS vs Europe, Klinsmann vs Garber

 Quality vs Quantity? A question most sport fans use in an attempt to bring a clearer perspective to their buddy(-ies) at the sports bar. Which is better? Some say quality is always best while others contend that it all depends on the situation. In this particular situation, I will discuss whether who is correct over the youth and growth of American soccer players. To be more accurate, it concerns the mne's U23 soccer team. Don Garber, the commissioner of Major League Soccer, stated that he and Jurgen Klinsman, head coach of the US men's national team, have "a very different view" when it comes to the growth of the US men's soccer team. In short, Garber thinks that young US talent should stay in the MLS and Klinsmann believes that players will grow much better in Europe. The numbers I am about to present concern the men's U23 team and only the players that play in the MLS. 

• GK Tyler Miller (age 23), Seattle Sounders, 1(starts)/6(total team games) starts in 2016 season. 2nd string
• D Tim Parker (23), Vancouver Whitecaps, 6/7 in 2016. Starter 
• M Kellyn Acosta (20), FC Dallas, 4/6 in 2016. 3rd year in MLS, frequently starts.
• D Eric Miller (23), Colorado Rapids, 5/9 in 2016. Traded to Rapids this year.
• D Walker Zimmerman (22), FC Dallas, 6/8 in 2016. Usual starter 3rd season
• M Matt Polser (22), Chicago Fire, 6/7 in 2016. Starter.
• M Fatai Alashe (22), San Jose Earthquakes,  8/9 in 2016.  
• M Will Trapp (23), Columbus Crew, 8/8 in 2016. Starter 3rd year with team.
• F Khiry Shelton (22), New York City FC, 7/9 in 2016. Contender to start (David Villa)
• F Jordan Morris (21), Seattle Sounders, 8/8 in 2016. Starter (Rookie season) 

*Data collected from MLS and ESPN data archives 

11 out of the 23 players in the U23 squad play in Europe or Mexico. 

Careers (of U23 players that played against Colombia). MLS: 279 games played Europe/Mexico:114 games played

Don Garber's comments do not come out of thin air. The numbers show that a lot of these players get more playing time if they stay state's side. However, Garber did mention that the league is still in "investment mode." Which gives the impression that he is aware of the quality of the league. Europe by far has the greater quality of play (in general), and that is were Klinsmann's "view" comes from. To put in perspective, if one were to coach the Costa Rican national team, which is the "3rd" biggest team in the CONCACAF, the coach would prefer to pick players that play in Real Madrid or Sporting Lisbon over players that play in the Costa Rican league. That is not to say there isn't quality in the MLS or that the MLS is an after thought, but that is Jurgen Klinsmann's perspective towards the MLS. He isn't wrong either. Coming from Germany a soccer power house, he has seen the best play and played with the best in the world and wants players that can compete at the highest quality level possible. Garber or Klinsmann? Both have good points, but doesn't change the fact that the U23 USA men's team failed to qualify for the Rio Olympics.

 

Fire Jurgen Klinsmann?

           Jurgen Klinsmann has been wrongfully receiving  abundant negative criticism for results as the U.S. men's soccer coach. By wrongfully I mean that Klinsmann should be criticized, but is being scorched by the media for the wrong reasons. As a head coach on any high level competitive soccer team criticism is expected and Klinsmann is no exception. After the 2-0 lost in Guatemala I read articles from the media on a few of Klinsman's faults as a coach. One of them was that he plays players out of position and isn't consistent with his line up. I read that in the last 82 games Klinsmann has put out 80 different line-ups. The issue I have with this particular criticism is that it reveals how low our soccer IQ is as a nation. Now I agree that Klinsmann is a terrible coach tactically, which is nothing new from his quick stint as Bayern Munich's coach. The captain Philipp Lahm publicly criticized his fellow countrymen for not emphasizing soccer tactics enough. The great Pep Gurdiola who is held as one of the best coaches in the world right now is no stranger to switching players from their comfortable positions. In the champions league final as FC Barcelona's coach versus  Manchester United he played Carles Puyol, the captain, a dominant center back played as a right back the whole game. On a more permanent bases Pep Guardiola moved an Argentine center defensive midfielder into the center back position. In Bayern Guardiola moved Philipp Lahm, a right back, into the deep center midfield position. The same player and club Klinsmann coached years before. This idea is nothing new nor specific to Guardiloa. Arsene Wenger acquired Thierry Henry from Juventus to Arsenal in 1999. At the time Henry was a winger for Juventus, but at Arsenal Wenger used him as a striker. Sergio Ramos, Real Madrid's solid center back started his career as a right back for Spanish club Sevilla. In Europe, and the rest of the world players change position or play multiple of positions. It is not uncommon act from coaches to do so. Yet, for Jurgen Klinsmann to be criticized for something common is ridiculous. Now it is not to say players should always be moved or that a soccer player had to change his position throughout their career. Some players have always been a winger or defender and dominate because they excel at that position. I agree that the U.S. men's soccer team lacks consistency and it is true Klinsmann isn't a great coach. As I see he reads the game very poorly. Great choice as the director of USSF, but the coaching position may not suit him well. But as I mentioned before in a previous blog, the lack of individual talent is what hurts the U.S. the most. The way the U.S. soccer plays with extreme emphasis as a team unit players need more time to gel together. For example, at the moment the U.S. is not sure which two center backs solidify the defense the best. Most  national teams play the best two center backs they have or the best two available. At the moment some would say it is frightening that the there is no solidity in the back. Maybe it's a good thing for the men's team that it's still up for grabs. It allows for a good decent coach to play multiple players in those positions to see who can compete. Only if that terrible Klinsmann could do that....oh wait.            

The men's United States soccer team is in need of a miracle. I am not talking about a miracle to beat Guatemala on Tuesday. I strongly predict that the men's team will pull off a great result. What I am more concerned with is the fact that the men's team has no true individual talent. Now when I mean individual talent I am speaking based on player being able to go 1 on 1. The United States soccer team is a great team. Emphasis on team. When the team wins or plays well it is mainly as a whole or collectively. That is not to say the US has never had a great individual performances here and there. How can one forget Tim Howard producing save after save against Belgium at the 2014 world cup? The US lost the game 2-1 in overtime. Great team effort, but all around on the field no true individual stood out. Matt Besler stood out in a way that proves my point. At the time the best center back in form. Close to the halfway line USA's best defender loses out one on one to a 17 year old Belgium forward who received a pass from their own half who out positions and out muscles Besler and sprints down the wide lane and sets up the play that gives Belgium the lead in overtime. The US men's team did not lose just because Matt Besler was beat out 40 something yards out from the goal. If Matt Hummels, Giorgio Chiellini, or Sergio Ramos was in that position one can trust that they will not get beat in that position. Not stating that those defenders can't or haven't been beaten in a similar case, I am just having a difficult time recalling a moment when it did occur that led to a goal. One could argue that the US team was out of place especially on a fast break counter. Which is true, I agree that fast break counters are dangerous to any side even to the most organized defenses in world. Yet, in those moments is where I argue that the US needs to have individuals produce. In basketball, Jordan has taken last shot buzzer beaters to win his team the game. Yes, if the Chicago Bulls would have made all their free throws and limit just one foul the whole scenario with Michael Jordan taking the last shot to win the game could have been avoided. But it's sports, things don't go as planned or as smooth as one might want it to go. Soccer and basketball are completely different sports, I see that, but what I want to prove is the individualism that the rest of the big 4 sports league (MLS is catching up to NHL) that make for great spectacles. I am not asking for a miracle that the US will produce a Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. I am asking for a miracle not selling my soul. One of the reasons why the US men's team produces great team effort is because that's its best asset, a one trick pony in a way. Many are arguing over what is wrong with the US men's team and what should be done. Some say it's the players pool others want Klinsmann's head. I would say it is a bit of both. I will go into the latter on a following post. Until the US can find a defender that can shut down opposing forwards one on one, produce a winger that can speed down the line and smoke defenders over and over, or call-up a forward who is a dangerous threat that can score any time he receives the ball in the box. One of those would be a nice, a miracle if all three of those happen. But at the moment the US men's Soccer team needs a miracle if they ever really want to be relevant.  

Hello to all my soon to be fellow readers. My name is Saul and the blogger for Saul Says Sports Stuff. As a sports major there is hardly anything that does not interest me that involves sports. From the history, philosophy, economics, politics and the game itself. My vast interest includes all the sports in the States, unlike the common belief the sport of preference for me is soccer (football). I do talk about the state of MLS, leagues in Europe, international match ups and FIFA. Yet, I enjoy spring training and american football just as the next guy. The best part about being a sports major who enjoys all the sports makes it a great year every year!