Talk:Major League Soccer

Playoff games in player infoboxes

Hi. Not sure this is the right place to ask, but... Noticed in Jovan Kirovski's infobox, the LA Galaxy stats include playoff games, whereas the Colorado Rapids stats don't (according to his MLSnet bio). Is there any convention as to whether playoff games should included in the infobox stats? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jersey Sponsors table

Here is the table that had been added to the article:

As in the article - click [show] to expand

Major League Soccer Jersey Sponsorship Deals
Team	Jersey Sponsor	Product Type	Value
Chicago Fire	Best Buy	Retail electronics chain	$2-4 million per year ($7.5 over 3yrs)
Chivas USA	Comex (Group)	4th largest architectural paint manufacturer in North America	$2 million per year
Columbus Crew	Glidden	Paint manufacturer	$1 million per year
DC United	Volkswagen	Car manufacturer	$3.1-3.7 million per year ($14M over 5yrs)
Houston Dynamo	Amigo Energy	Retail energy provider	$1.9 million per year
Los Angeles Galaxy	Herbalife	Health suppliments	$4-5 million per year
Real Salt Lake	XanGo	Health/Energy drink	$1 million per year
New York Red Bulls	Red Bull	Energy drink	Part of $100 million deal for team & stadium
Seattle Sounders FC (2009 expansion)	Xbox 360 Live	Microsoft gaming system	$4 million per year ($20 over 5 yrs)
Toronto FC	BMO	BMO Financial Group (financial holdings including Bank of Montreal)	$1-1.5 million per year
Colorado Rapids	no jersey sponsor
FC Dallas	no jersey sponsor
Kansas City Wizards	no jersey sponsor
New England Revolution	no jersey sponsor
San Jose Earthquakes	no jersey sponsor
Philadelphia Club (2010 expansion)	None announced yet

I removed the table because 1) there was considerable controversey about this the last time it was added, 2) it looked really out of place where it was in the article, and 3) it needs to be better formatted before going in the article. So I've moved it to this spot in order to get consensus on whether it should go in the article in the first place, and if it gets support, how to make it smaller/better formatted to go in the article.

Major League Soccer Shirt Sponsorships

Team	Sponsor	Value
Chicago Fire	Best Buy	$7.5M over 3 years
Chivas USA	Comex	$2M per year
Columbus Crew	Glidden	$1M per year
D.C. United	Volkswagen	$14M over 5 years
Houston Dynamo	Amigo Energy	$1.9M per year
Los Angeles Galaxy	Herbalife	$4M-$5M per year
Real Salt Lake	XanGo	$500K-$1M per year
Red Bull New York	Red Bull	Part of $100M deal in 2006 for team & stadium
Seattle Sounders FC (2009)	Xbox 360 Live	$20M over 5 years
Toronto FC	BMO	$1M-$1.5M per year

I just want to point out that I have no problem with this info going into the article somehow, I just think there is a more artful way of doing it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New table format is much cleaner and more concise. The original table had multiple citations in the dollar column --denoted by the numeric footnote links. Grant, do you think those should be kept? Would it would add credibility? Klr rsl (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs all of that info, just a simple link to the article would be fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox material

Non-essential information was recently re-added to the infobox. I don't believe this is necessary. Infoboxen are meant to contain at-a-glance, current information. They are not meant to provide complete summaries of article information. I don't believe that the number of teams joining MLS in years to come, or who won trophies two seasons ago, is important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The teams in the next few years, I'm willing to agree with you on, but including the fact that DC and Houston have won their respective titles back-to-back adds relevant information and doesn't increase the length of the infobox at all, so if you can meet me half way, problem solved. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just something to keep in mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion Article

It starting to seem like the expansion section could do with its own seperate article. There are just so many potential markets and future teams being reported in the media.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a little overkill as far as the rumors go if it had its own article, but I could be wrong. I think we should stick to the markets that MLS has officially said they have an interest in, as it seems to me those are the only cities worth mentioning without drifting too much into rumormongering. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you that just an article on future expansion would be overkill. I think the article should cover both the future and the past expansions of MLS. The creation of the league, the markets that were selected for the initial teams, the various expansion teams, the loss of the Florida teams, the expansion into Canada and the future expansion of MLS. While this is already covered pretty well in the article, it could do with a bit more detail which a seperate article could provide.

With regards the future teams, I agree it should try and avoid speculation as much as possible. It shouldn't include every small-town news columinist claiming that Moncton, New Brunswick or Anchorage, Alaska should/will be the next expansion, but rather it should include only markets that the MLS has identified or where there is evidence of a strong proposal for a team. I do think it needs its own article as it is a major part of MLS - at least in popular perception. A lot of people couldn't tell you who won MLS last year, but have a multitude of opinions on where it will be expanding to next. I'll start trying to gather some sources for this subject.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your research. If you would like some help or someone to take a look at any rough drafts you have going before you publish, by all means drop me a line on my talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can everything in the MLS Expansion Applications for 2009 not be speculative by having references to media saying that they will apply (for instance, Portland)? I can find nowhere online about Orlando MLS and it does not seem to be a definitive application from a Google search. Can someone either remove this as speculation or tag it with a legitimate reference? Thanks. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Who put Grant.Alpaugh in charge of this article?

It seems that any time anyone makes a change to this article and Grant.Alpaugh disagree with that change, he reverts it. He even ignores agreements (like the New York Red Bulls refering to the team and Red Bull New York refering to the organization) that were made long before he started editing. I didn't think that there was ownership of articles in Wikipedia! KitHutch (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't per WP:OWN. But if either one of your revert again we may have to get the article protected. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, please place new topics at the bottom of the page so that it is clear what order they were raised in. Second, I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm answering it. You contend that the table implies that the City, State/Province refers to the location of the organization, rather than the location of the stadium the team most often plays in. More to the point, the issue will be moot after a few months when Red Bull New York moves its headquarters to Red Bull Park after it opens. More importantly, the answer to that question has no bearing on whether the collumn in question refers to the club's name, which it does. Quite simply, the organization is owned/sponsored by Red Bull, the organization has the right to put a team in MLS, U.S. Open Cup, or any other competition, they do so with players that are allocated to the organization, and on and on. The only time it is appropriate to refer to the team as the New York Red Bulls is in the standings or results, i.e. when we're specifically talking about the team the organization fields, and not the organization itself, as we do in the 2008 MLS and Open Cup season articles. Finally, I think the assumption of animosity behind my edits is unfortunate, and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH and making frivilous allegations is a violation of WP:NPA. Either provide an example of where I argued that I was reverting simply because I didn't want other people to edit or that I was right simply because I was the one making the argument, or apologize and/or strike the allegation. To be clear, I have no problem with you or your editing style, and you have no reason to have a problem with me or mine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is trivially easy to avoid in future. If you're reverting a good-faith edit, and have reason to believe that it will be made again, always go to the talk page rather than relying on an edit summary to make your case. This prevents about 90% of all acrimony in content disputes, which is usually due to editors getting pissed with each other over revert wars. This applies to everyone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it was agreed long ago that when referring to the team, it would be listed as the New York Red Bulls. When referring to the organization that owns the team, it would be listed as Red Bull New York. For several months, no one had problems with it being "New York Red Bulls" in the team table because of this agreement. Along comes Grant.Alpaugh and he decides to ignore the agreed upon conventions for the Red Bulls and change it without even a discussion. Going along the same logic, Chivas USA should be listed as Club Deportivo Chivas USA because that is their name NOT Chivas USA. KitHutch (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then point to precedent instead of making it personal. This is how pissing contests start on Wikipedia, and they're extremely easy to avoid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DC United soccer specific stadium

I noticed on the table in the Teams section, it says D.C. United will be replaced by a soccer-specific stadium, noted by the superscript. While there is a proposal for a new stadium, the D.C. council has not approved it. The proposed stadium is Poplar Point Stadium and here is a link to an article that shows the most recent news about the proposal:[1]. So, I have removed this superscript, since it is not really accurate. --98.204.131.137 (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In this same vein: the soccer-specific stadium article says a "soccer-specific stadium (or football-specific stadium) is a term used mainly in the United States and Canada, coined by Lamar Hunt, to refer to a sports stadium whose primary purpose is to host association football matches." Now, while RFK obviously was not designed specifically with soccer in mind, D.C. United is the only current tenant of the stadium. Should we reflect this as being a soccer-specific stadium (at least currently), or perhaps with a different superscript? Or none at all (as it currently is)? Charles 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say none at all. While RFK is currently only host to soccer as a full time tenant, the stadium was in no way designed with soccer specifically in mind like the current run of SSSs. It's both too large and of a completely different design (ie: not a 10-27,000 seat rectangle with soccer as the primary serviced sport. RFK is still and always will be a multipurpose cookie cutter stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the crux of your argument, I think we would all agree that Old Trafford, just to name an example, was designed with soccer in mind, but has far more than 10-27,000 seats. Just saying that those are loose guidelines you quoted, not a specific definition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article also says that "the design and purpose of an SSS is centered on soccer". Since RFK stadium was originally built and designed for football and baseball, I think it would be misleading to call it soccer-specific. I also agree with no superscript. Also, based on the soccer-specific stadium article, the stadiums for KC, Houston, and San Jose are also just proposals, although I haven't found much news on the status of these proposals. These teams all currently have superscripts denoting that a soccer specific stadium is coming. --Spw422 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to partially revert Grant on his recent move relating to exactly that. KC recently got approval to have the stadium and surrounding development built. And last week San Jose's owners made the first payment and aquired the title on the land their SSS is going on. So those two should have the superscript re added. As for size, yes Old Trafford is bigger and the guidelines are loose, but they're US specific. Old Trafford is a soccer stadium, not a soccer specific stadium. Slight difference to be sure, but SSS's are unique in the US due to our... disinterest historically with soccer. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was unaware of those two developments. The one thing I do know for sure, however is that there is a bunch of useless code in that template, and I deleted it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On sort of the same vein, at what point does it become better to assume that all stadiums are SSSes unless marked? I mean, right now it has to be labeled with a superscript indicating that it is a SSS. At what point should it be the other way around? When should they only get the superscript if it isn't a SSS? As it is, eight teams have a SSS, three more are under construction (not counting San Jose, since they already play in one, though it will likely be replaced), and three more are in discussions to get one. That's the whole current league. By 2010, most of the league should have one or will have one in discussions, and just about any expansion team from here on out will have to have one or have one under construction to start playing. Seattle is the only team without one and without one planned. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably after the next batch, KC/SJ/Hou open we could swap it to be the other way. By then Philly will also be in the league and with them their SSS as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is New England really looking for a new stadium? I thought that their deal was just sort of like:

"Hey are you guys getting a SSS?" *shuffles feet nervously* "We're working on it!"

Since Seattle Sounders FC have said that they're not going to get one, is there any chance New England just eventually says they're doing what Seattle Sounders FC is doing? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors have been floating around for some time now that the Revs are looking to build a stadium of their own in Somerville, Massachusetts, and this article indicates that things are on the move. While I don't think they're in any great rush (since they don't have to lease a stadium or anything like that), I do think they're looking to get this project rolling soon. It's not anything that can be added to Wikipedia yet, but in my opinion I think the Revs will have a new stadium in five-ish years. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the Krafts own the Revolution it is likely to be a situation not unlike Seattle. There is no reason for them to push for a new stadium since the current stadium is owned by same organization. They've been talking with Sommerville and neighboring cities for a decade now with little to show for it. And as Grant suggests, despite ballparkdigest's speculation, Seattle's situation isn't going to compel the Revolution to move any faster, if at all on the issue since really it is a non-issue for the team. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Stats

Do the stats in MLS player infoboxes include or exclude playoff games? Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Content of "Competition Format"

Placed first in the article, "Competition format" is one of the more important sections. After the article intro, it delves in deeper as to what MLS is and how it actually works. Should over half of this section be caught up in how MLS teams qualify for non-MLS competitions? It seems a critical section such as this should stick exclusively to how the league works (this is it's article) and not how the independent clubs qualify for external tournaments. I'd propose simply and concisely placing the non-league cup information somewhere else - if included at all. --Blackbox77 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but firstly you have to recognize that the clubs are far from independent. All of the players are contracted with MLS and not their individual clubs. This means that all of these other competitions are inherent to the way MLS works, and for that matter something inherent to every league in the world is how the nation determines its representatives for international competitions. I think something that might be good (if only so that the information doesn't get too outdated unnecessarily) would be if the article only spoke about how MLS teams could qualify for other competitions, but not include the teams that have qualified each season. In other words, speak entirely in generalities (MLS Cup winner gets this, etc.). -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MLS Expansion

I think that cities offering for MLS teams should be included in the MLS expansion section or there should be at least a link at the bottom leading to page talking about cities bidding for MLS teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadow7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? There are dozens of cities that have said "Sure! We'd love an MLS franchise!" We all know that most if not all of these cities will never even get to have discussions with high level MLS officials about expansion, so why are we obligated to publicize every whack-job mayor's attempt to get press? I don't think we are, and WP is not the place for rumormongering. At the end of the day that's what most of this is. If it was serious MLS would add the city to the list of potential candidates, which by the way will be updated in a few months during the week of MLS Cup. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, only certain cities are serious about getting a team and have made plans to try to get one, and I think it would be good to have an article to help people like me keep updated on who all is in the running to get a MLS team, and to find out who is trying to get a team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadow7 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please indent using one or more colons like this ":" to make the conversation easier to follow. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes like this "~~~~" so that we can know who said what. Now, that being said, I understand your want to stay current on the cities in contention for MLS franchises. Please use ESPNsoccernet, Sports Illustrated, BigSoccer, or many other sites to keep up on MLS gossip. As for Wikipedia, we need to keep verifiable and reliable information, and nothing more, about MLS expansion, lest we become nothing more than rumormongers. The best way to do this is to only use the cities MLS itself has identified as targets of expansion. They update this list at least twice a year, and I promise you that no city has gotten a franchise recently without being on this list first. We need to use that list and nothing else in order to keep the article accurate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Hartford back to the section. AEG was the one who expressed interest, not the city itself. AEG is already a investor and team owner in MLS so it can be a considered "Sure! We'd love an MLS franchise!" situation. This is a least part of the MLS that wants to be in Hartford.

I'd argue it's not though for several reasons, 1. NE will never allow it. 2. AEG is being forced to divest itself form owning more than one team. 3. There are no plans in Hartford for a stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to create an article on MLS expansion (and a twin for the Australian A-League) but I have not yet got round to it. It would enable the expansion details to be discussed more thoroughly (including both the history of MLS expansion, and the League's plans for future expansion) without filling up this article too much. This page has got to be careful of overloading with the expansion issue, as a great many cities have hopes of getting a team. Its best, as has been suggested, to stick to the official MLS list on this page.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay Conrwallis, I think that would be a good page to have so if you do make such a page please put something here saying you did so so I could see.--NightShadow7 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea Cornwallis. Please do create both articles. I look forward to reading it once you've had the chance to make the pages. Caden S (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a great idea. Considering the breadth of recent expansion and the number of cities clamoring for a team, not to mention the extent of the expansion section as it is, I think it could make for a very good article. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the history of MLS expansion page going to be made soon because it has been said that it will be made above and I'm waiting to see it but have not seen it yet. Also the race for MLS expansion is getting interesting with the new Miami news so I think now would be a good time to make the page.--NightShadow7 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make it yourself. Just stop trying to put information about Miami expansion into the article unless and until MLS announces Miami as a candidate for expansion during the week of MLS Cup 2008. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not very good at making wikipedia pages so i'd rather not make it mysef, and also I am not the one who put in the thing about Miami.--NightShadow7 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the point still stands. Also, I think it is unfair for you to complain about how there's not an article for you to read about a given subject. Why don't you work on it yourself? It will be good practice, and no one is going to be mean to you if it is not that good, it will give people something to improve upon. Otherwise, it seems that you are pretty well informed about the subject already, so I don't see why you need an article about expansion for your own edification. I think that you should either work on it yourself (I don't intend this in a mean way, honestly, I hope you give it a shot) or you should stop asking people to be more generous with their time than they already are. People don't have an endless supply of time, and they work on the things they deem important. If you find this subject important, please start the article yourself. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done the basics for the MLS Expansion page, I copied and pasted all the expansion news from the Expansion part of the MLS throughtout the past few months. Whenever anyone gets the chance I would like it if they added the links and fixed up the page for me so that the page is useful and conveys its message.--NightShadow7 (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done some work on the expansion. I'll merge it in to the new article tomorrow.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really good job. Nice one NightShadow. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts and feelings on the new article. I sincerely hope I come off dispassionate and not like I'm just trying to throw my weight around.--Blackbox77 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying as I said on the MLS expansion talk, and what it really needs is a lot of work adding depth to it. --NightShadow7 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

MLS Cup

While MLS itself might refer to the competition as "MLS Cup" (sans definite article), what do secondary sources say? We go by common use, not branding, hence "the iPod" et cetera. If secondary sources (such as the sports media) use the definite article then so should we. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that everywhere else I've seen it as simply MLS Cup. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Founded

The reference you guys here are using (http://web.mlsnet.com/about/) says the league was founded in 1996, after the 1994 FIFA games. Unless you can provide a reliable source to replace the current one in use it must say 1996. We follow not what you know, but what is referenced.

And I quote "December 17, 1993: In fulfillment of U.S. Soccer's promise to FIFA, World Cup USA 1994 Chairman and CEO Alan I. Rothenberg announces the formation of Major League Soccer (MLS) and unveils the league logo."

So which is it? Since the website conflicts itself, we need another source. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems it's 1993 on multiple sites such as [2],

The history page on the U.S. Soccer website lists MLS under 1993, though the word "founded" is not used. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then the first ref should be replaced with the other one, so the information is correct? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems so. It seems only MLS doesn't know when they were founded. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the difference in dates between when MLS was set-up and when the first games kicked off? That might account for the discrepancy, but I'm only guessing. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MLS Cup

The MLS Cup labeled as the "Playoff Champion" is disingenuous as the MLS Cup is awarded to the "league champion" and is recognized as such. The MLS Cup article states as much as does the MLS. They list the MLS Cup winner as the "League Champion" as shown on multiple pages here. We should list it as such as well as the winner of the MLS Cup is considered the champion of the MLS season. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's acceptable for clarity and accuracy sake. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Teams Table

The current table of MLS teams, the essence and definition of what the league really is, is here below. In my opinion, it feels sparse and rough.

Eastern Conference
Team	Stadium	Founded
Chicago Fire	Toyota Park	1997
Columbus Crew	Columbus Crew Stadium	1994
D.C. United	RFK Stadium	1995
Kansas City Wizards	CommunityAmerica Ballpark	1995
New England Revolution	Gillette Stadium	1995
New York Red Bulls	Giants Stadium	1995
Toronto FC	BMO Field	2006
Western Conference
Chivas USA	The Home Depot Center	2004
Colorado Rapids	Dick's Sporting Goods Park	1995
FC Dallas	Pizza Hut Park	1996
Houston Dynamo	Robertson Stadium	2005
Los Angeles Galaxy	The Home Depot Center	1995
Real Salt Lake	Rio Tinto Stadium	2004
San Jose Earthquakes	Buck Shaw Stadium	1995

I revised this and made the following:

It is common practice and accepted in many different sport league articles to include more than just a team name, city, and date. (Team table examples: USL-1, La Liga, Mexican Primera División, NFL, NBA, and many more). In fact, many other pages include basic information such as the city and head coach as well as stadium capacity, position in current league standings, first year in league (even if relegation does not exist), team colors, etc.

My table was taken down because the newer information was considered irrelevant and could be looked up in the clubs' respective articles. By such reasoning, no sports league article needs anything but a list of team names as all information can be found by just clicking their link. Is so much to ask to include basic info when it holds common precedent all over Wikipedia? I don't mind constructive criticism of my table, but quickly dismissing it (deleting instead of compromising) is harsh. --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't simply dismiss the table. There's nothing to compromise on that hasn't already been discussed before. There is no need to repeat that the Columbus Crew play in Columbus, etc. There is also no reason to include a Head Coach/Manager, because like in Toronto, who is that supposed to be? Mo is still technically the manager, but John is the head coach. Why do we care about a founding/entry date, when for all intents and purposes the team comes into existance when it starts playing in the league? It's not like other nations where a club could have been founded just for kickabouts at first, then compete in cup competitions, before joining its first league. The clubs come into existance with more or less the sole purpose of playing in the league. Stadium capacities is a fuzzy one for issues we've discussed before, and sponsorships, colors, logos, etc. have been brought up and shot down before. There is simply no reason we need another table (in a different format from the rest of the article, by the way) to show all of this information. -->> LATE SIGNING -->> -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to put my 2 cents in. I have to say I would be happy with either, but my perference is for the new one. I like having the snapshot of basic team info all in one easily accessible place without having to load each team's article seperately. And as Blackbox points out his table does bring MLS in line with other North American and Soccer leagues. Additionally I'd strongly suggest adding at least the city since so many MLS teams don't play in the city they're named after. And in particular Chivas USA doesn't even list the city they claim to represent in the team name. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like the new table, though I'm iffy on the head coach and area of play. I think head coach is information critical to a team article but not the league article. In regards to the area of play, I've always felt that it's pretty obvious from either the name of the team or the city of location and is kinda redundant. I know Chivas USA doesn't have a specific location, but they do have a city. Just my two cents. Just personally not a fan of it.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True they have a city, but you already know what it is before hand. Someone unfamiliar with them won't know that. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If these issues have been discussed before, it does not mean they are not relevant now. That fact is all over Wikipedia policy. In regard to cities, out of the 11 clubs named after a city, only 5 actually play in their namesake town. That includes the Wizards who play in the smaller Kansas City, Kansas, not the larger Kansas City, Missouri. Then factoring in the clubs named after a state/region (plus Chivas), 10 teams make it ambiguous where "home" is when looking at name alone. For coaches, I thought after looking at other league tables that did this, it seemed to heighten just how important and pivotal this man and his decisions are. He essential defines the team and seemed worthy for inclusion. And as for the league entrance dates, IMO it is probably more significant and meaningful than the founding date (in a wider league perspective). I feel strongly about all three points but could compromise, tweak, or do away with coaches and entrance dates. The cities however seem highly important. Is a better label just "City" instead of "City/Area"? --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that "City" is better than "City/Area". A team can only be located in one particular town/city, which to me is what that column represents, the city of they play in. The New England Patriots and New England Revolution are in Foxborough, not New England, and the Golden State Warriors are listed as playing in Oakland and not the state of California. Just my two cents - I'm not going to be heartbroken if you keep it as city/area, I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherManNX01 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah the more I think about it, I like city better as well. Since copying and pasting on an iPhone is no fun (see: impossible), I'll try to post something again tomorrow. ;) Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Bridgeview and Chicago is technical, and I don't think very relevant to the article, as clicking on the stadium article would give this information easily. One or two teams being an exception is not good enough to make a mostly redundant collumn in the table. Also, please, tell me how exactly you divined that Kansas City originally meant MO, but now means KS? I'm willing to bet that since the two cities are basically one large city, the team didn't intend to mean one and not the other when choosing a name. Also, stadium capacity is a no go, as many teams have unverifiable stadium sizes. There are many articles linked in the archived discussion about this, but aside from that how do you count things like when New England has an international friendly before/after their game, thus opening the whole stadium when normally only the lower bowl is open? Seattle will have similar issues. Also, the people at the HDC basically made up the 27K capacity when there is evidence to believe that on matchdays there are only around 24K seats available for use. Due to this average attendance is also a no-go. I would be willing to deal with the founding/joining date, because the teams with the same year are the exception, not the rule, though I would say colspanning is a bad move there as well. As for head coaches, I think that would be too fluid a situation, because what is next after that, captains, stars? I also think it should be just a standard Wikitable, as the blue makes the table look different from the rest of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted stadium capacity mentioned in this table. I agree with you 100%. And for the column spanning, I think I agree now as well. FC Dallas is the only club to be founded and join the league in the same year. My preference for the navbox as opposed to the generic wikitable is the former comes off concise and clean no matter what. Placing the newer info into a typical wikitable keeps big fonts and overloads table cells. From browser to browser and computer to computer, there is a great chance of distortion. A navbox helps here. Thanks for hearing me out. --Blackbox77 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I say go with the newer table as it is more in line with other soccer/sports leagues on Wikipedia. KitHutch (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I feel your nitpicking of how the new table has to look is not treating my contributes as good faith edits and is coming across as acts of ownership. You insist on justification for my edits yet you don't provide justification for your own - only that you prefer it a certain way. I explained why a navbox format is preferable to the generic wikitable. As I've already said, from browser to browser and computer to computer, there is a great chance of distortion. Additionally, large wordy cells with entries like "New England Revolution" and "CommunityAmerica Ballpark 1 2" can become overwhelming. I'd bet at a smaller resolution they'd even take up more than one line. The navbox keeps the info a little more formatted, organized, and, most importantly, clean. Does anyone else have feedback? --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I have to agree. I think it's pretty obvious we have a consensus here to go with the new one as Blackbox has it. Or at the very least a modified version of his. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I also give my backing to the new table. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that the text is much smaller than the rest of the article, also on my screen there is way too much blank space because of how wide the collumns are on this table. There's also no reason the table has to go all the way accross the screen. On my widescreen Mac monitor at my office, the table has acres of empty space in it. I think there is much less concern with people running 600x800 screens, than people running widescreen monitors with tons of empty space in the table because of it. It is not our job to make sure the article looks good on your iPhone. Sorry, but it just isn't. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with iPhones. I regret mentioning I have one because in hindsight it could come off that's why I built the table that way. (Although that wouldn't make sense as smaller font would be all the more smaller on a cellphone). One reason I crafted the newer table like I did is because there is precedent on many pages for such formatting. Obviously many others find it an acceptable form. And apparently others on this page do too. It is clean and better formatted and is less likely to distort. See my reasons above. This is coming across like a personal battle you're trying to wage. If there are others who disagree with me, please speak up. If I'm off base, call me out. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Blackbox on this. I'm running 1920x1200, and it was just fine the way it was, thank you very much. I thought we had a consensus to go with the new table here. No one mentioned anything about font size or empty space (neither of which bother me in the new table...in fact, I think it gives it a cleaner look). At the very least, could you at least raise these issues here before getting into an edit war over it? WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I have to agree. The new table looks and feels better than the older one. It fits in very well in the article.Hx823 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Profitability

Someone should edit the profitability article to add in that Toronto is now profitable according to this site, (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/09/mls-soccer-beckham-biz-sports-cz_kb_0909mlsvalues.html). --NightShadow7 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do...(209.2.60.95 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Move discussion for Portland MLS team article

There is currently a discussion on whether the new Major League Soccer team for Portland should be located at Portland Timbers (MLS) or Major League Soccer Portland 2011. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MLS is a United States league with a Canadian team

After a few back and forth reverts of the opening line, seems we need a discussion about this. I come with an open mind and the potential to be presented with facts they may alter my perspective. as for now here are the facts that show that MLS is a US league, not a US and Canadian league:

1. The United States Soccer Federation is the sole governing body. The Canadian Soccer Association has zero powers over the league, zero input. Further, the league pays its dues per team to the USSF, including monies for the sole Canadian team. The CSA receives no money from MLS.

2. Major League Soccer, L.L.C. is incorporated in the state of NY as a United States corporation with its headquarters located at 420 5th Ave. New York, NY 10018. It does not have any articles of incorporation in Canada, nor does it exist on any level as a Canadian corporation.

3. FIFA recognizes MLS as a US league. Approval was sought by the USSF from FIFA, to allow a Canadian team to join the US league, which was granted. At no time was authorization sought, nor granted, to have a bi-national league as does exist in other parts of the world.

4. A similiar situation can be found in Major League Baseball, also having a sole Canadian team, and is in no way shape or form considered anything but an American league with a Canadian team competing in it.

further, in the paragraph my edit keeps being reverted to:

"(MLS) is the top-flight professional soccer league in the United States and Canada. The league comprises 15 teams, 14 in the U.S. and one in Canada. MLS represents the top tier of the American and Canadian soccer pyramids."

the first sentence is A) factually incorrect, B) redundant to the third sentence.

the paragraph including my edit:

"(MLS) is the top-flight professional soccer league based in the United States overseen by the United States Soccer Federation. The league comprises 15 teams, 14 in the U.S. and one in Canada. MLS represents the top tier of the American and Canadian soccer pyramids."

is A) factually sound, B) offers a higher concentration of information without being repetitive.

We all are obviously passionate about the league which i think is fantastic, but wikipedia is about being factually correct, not displaying the facts through our personal bias.