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. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is doing anything based on personal bias, so don't worry about that. I'm not Canadian, so I have no interest in making the league appear more Canadian than it is. The basis for my reversions is the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian. There are teams from the United States and Canada, and they play in the cup competitions sanctioned by the United States and Canada. The teams in the league can compete in international competition if they are nominated by their respective associations. More to the point, however, nowhere in the current version is anything mentioned about the league being associated with the Canadian Soccer Association, and any insinuation on your part that it does is just that, insinuation. I also disagree with the phrase "overseen by the United States Soccer Federation" as it implies that U.S. Soccer has input on the day-to-day operation of the league, which it does not. I'm also open to this as well, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Nothing in the lead, as currently written is incorrect. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"The basis for my reversions is the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian."

so you agree that the legal definition of MLS, is that it is a US league. you mention "the fact that in all but legal purposes the league is American and Canadian", what fact(s) is that exactly, because you have not provided any?

"There are teams from the United States and Canada"

as there are in MLB. explain to me how MLS is different.

"The teams in the league can compete in international competition if they are nominated by their respective associations."

Every team in MLS can qualify for the Concacaf Champions League (regional competition) by either winning the Supporters Sheild, or MLS Cup...except for TFC, because they are not a US team. The only avenue they have to entering the CCL is by winning the Canadian Cup.

"nowhere in the current version is anything mentioned about the league being associated with the Canadian Soccer Association, and any insinuation on your part that it does is just that, insinuation."

I never said that it did. I offered the correct governing bodies as supporting, and irrefutable evidence of the fact that MLS is an American league.

"I also disagree with the phrase "overseen by the United States Soccer Federation" as it implies that U.S. Soccer has input on the day-to-day operation of the league, which it does not."

It doesn't need day to day input to hold heavy influence, right down to supplying every ref for every MLS match. MLS has to seek USSF approval on a wide range of issues.

Please provide the facts that show MLS to be a bi-national league. The facts that supersede the legal definition you agree defines MLS as an American league. The facts that supersede the global authorities (FIFA) recognized designation of MLS as an American league. Please explain how MLS is different then MLB in regard to them being American leagues. Please explain how the USSF can be the governing body while the CSA has no power over the league, yet it is still a bi-national league. Please explain why TFC cannot enter a FIFA sanctioned regional competition by winning MLS Cup because they are a Canadian team.

Please provide the evidence to support your assertion, or cede the point.72.224.163.182 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first hop off of the WP:WIKILAWYER high horse. You're missing the forrest for the trees. I agree with you that MLS has its headquarters based in New York City, and I agree that the CSA has no input regarding MLS. I'm arguing that in the lead of the article, it is more important to convey the general sense of a subject than the technical fact, and I think that if you asked 100 people whether the statement: "Major League Soccer is the top-flight league in the United States and Canada," you would get 95 people saying "true," which is all the opening sentence says. My guess is you would get the same regarding USL. The league opperates a team (soon to be two or more) in Canada, they do business with Canadian companies, Canadian teams can represent Canada in international competition (I never said that they were eligable through all the berths American teams are), and the general truth of the matter is that they are, "the top flight-league in the United States and Canada." That doesn't mean that sentence conveys every possible aspect of Major League Soccer's status as an "American" league, but it isn't meant to. We're not composing a brief about the legal status of MLS, we're writing the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So having a decent vocabulary, backing up my position with facts, and requesting supporting information from you (which you have yet to provide any of) is wikilawyering? i won't apologize for my vocabulary, nor lower myself to the personal attack.

"I'm arguing that in the lead of the article, it is more important to convey the general sense of a subject than the technical fact"

the general sense of the subject of the MLS article, is the league, not your personal feelings about it, or your imaginary 100 people. did you seriously just use 100 figments of your imagination as supporting "evidence" to back up your position? i spend far to much of my free time on bigsoccer (the largest MLS forums i know of) and i can not disagree with you and your 100 imaginary people more.

"and the general truth of the matter is that they are, "the top flight-league in the United States and Canada."

it's not a truth general or otherwise. it's not a truth at all. while MLS may represent the top of the Canadian soccer pyramid, it does not represent the top Canadian league. http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=can/nationalleague/standings.html the sentence is incorrect.

"We're not composing a brief about the legal status of MLS, we're writing the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article."

Striving for accuracy equals "writing a brief"? So are you trying to tell me, in your opinion, an entry in an encyclopedia should be more concerned with "feelings" and personal interpretations then actual facts? you state your feelings and personal interpretations as if they are the definitive position, which they are not, and i strongly disagree with them. neither of our personal feelings should be published in this article...just the facts. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking your vocabulary at all, merely your overly aggressive attitude. You claim not to resort to personal attack, but regularly take a dismissive and demeaning tone. You know perfectly well the point I was making, but are insistant on an overly technical phrasing in the lead sentence of an article, and I believe that phrasing to misrepresent the accepted truth about the league. You concede that the league is at the top of the Canadian Soccer Pyramid, but won't allow the first sentence of the article to say that the league is the top-flight league in Canada? Again, I think you're missing the forrest for the trees. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i provided you a link to FIFA.com that displays the top tier league in Canada. You've ignored every fact I've posted, you make assertions like "the accepted truth about the league" without backing it up. i do not agree that your bias is the accepted truth. in fact i disagree. do you also think that major league baseball is a US and Canadian league? you have provided nothing to show me why your sentence is more correct, other then your personal feelings. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was the top-tier league in Canada, then it would be at the top of the Canadian Soccer Pyramid, wouldn't it? MLS was given special dispensation to admit Toronto FC because the CSA argued that they should be allowed to co-opt MLS as they can't get a "top-tier" league going in Canada because of the size, population, and interest in soccer in Canada. MLS operates a team in Canada, its level of play is higher than any other in Canada, and it is the top-flight league in Canada. While this might not convey the full spectrum of issues relating to soccer in Canada, that isn't the purpose of the first sentence of the article about Major League Soccer. This is like arguing that it is incorrect to say "Barack Obama was elected with 53% (or whatever %) of the vote on November 4, 2008" because he was technically elected by 538 people in the Electoral College in December. Both of those concepts are accurate, but the other requires an explanation that most people don't need to be familiar with, or care about. I would argue these situations are roughly similar. While the CSL might technically be the top-flight league in Canada, for all intents and purposes, it is MLS, and I think most people would back me up on that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is disingenuous to ask for a third opinion while claiming that I think I own the article. I'd ask you to back that up with proof from our discussion. I've never made any argument in this discussion or any other that is based on anything but the issue at hand. I've been nothing but civil, and I wish you would do the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"MLS operates a team in Canada, its level of play is higher than any other in Canada, and it is the top-flight league in Canada."

the fact that MLS offers a higher level of competition is why it can arguably rest at the top of the pyramid, but it does not make it in part a Canadian league. you still have given me any insight why MLB, which is in the exact same situation, is considered an American league with a Canadian team, but MLS should not.

your mixing your analogies. the debate here is between verifiable fact, and your opionion that you have offered no support for, other then your opinion on other peoples opinion. the opening line i suggest covey's relevant, factual and informative information to a reader who may not be familiar with the league. not to mention your suggested version (if we ignore the factual error) has the 1st and 3rd sentence offering redundant information.

your preferred opening line is either incorrect, or repetitive. take your pick. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not the first to feel that you have taken ownership of this article as evidenced by item 5 on this talk page. and you asking me for proof is irony at its best.

Allegations =/= Guilt. Not a single person, when confronted by me about the fallacy of that allegation has pursued it further, and the fact that you've resorted to throwing around allegations of ownership (not to mention your obvious increase in typos and disregard for capitalization after taking much pride earlier in your vocabulary) shows that you're arguing from a place of rage, rather than reason. Please, take a break and we'll resume this issue after the third party input you've requested has weighed in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

no, it's not rage, it's me getting tired. lack of capitalization is my normal MO online. i didn't think this was going to drag out so long, and if its going to, i should probably pull on my comfortable sweats and go at it relaxed instead of formal as i started. i agree Allegations =/= Guilt. its just my opinion, and Opinion =/= True.72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm tired as well. Can we call a truce until we get some other input? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i thought you'd never ask. 72.224.163.182 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Seems to me that the obvious parallel here is with the Scottish Football League. The lead of that describes it as a "league of football teams in Scotland", and I doubt anyone would deny that it is a Scottish league, under the auspices of the Scottish Football Association. But one team in that league (Berwick Rangers F.C.) is from England, not Scotland. So it seems to me that the text we have now - the MLS is a US league that happens to have a Canadian team in it - is both correct, and neutral. We can got into the further details of why it has a Canadian team in it in the body of the article. Anaxial (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion Here's my two cents. The opening of the article for the Football League Championship says that it "is the highest division of The Football League and second-highest division overall in the English football league system after the Premier League." However, Cariff City in Wales is also a member of the league. If we are going by what other articles say, then I think we need to consider MLS a US league with Canadian team(s). Also, it's incorrect to say that the CSA has no influence over MLS. There are Canadian refs who do MLS games. They maybe assigned by USSF, but they get all their training and certifications from the CSA. KitHutch (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there's an entire article on this phenomenon, which does, indeed, include Toronto F.C. as an example. Anaxial (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article... --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with how Anaxial stated it: "The MLS is a US (as in USSF affiliated) league that happens to have a Canadian team in it." But really we should be looking for sources that back this up so there is no ambiguity on how to state it. At ussoccer.com there is an "About U.S. Soccer" tab underneath which is the link Organizational Structure (which has a nifty chart!). More so than the "pyramid model" of European promotion-relegation football associations, this "flowchart model" more accurately and officially represents how the USSF (and likely CSA) is structured. If you click on the MLS logo, you get this page. After reading it, it obviously hasn't been updated since 2003 however it very clearly states "Major League Soccer is the U.S. Soccer-sanctioned Division I outdoor professional soccer league in the United States." If this were rewritten today I'd imagine the sentence would end with "...and Canada." Frankly that's the perfect sentence: "Major League Soccer is the U.S. Soccer-sanctioned Division I outdoor professional soccer league in the United States and Canada." It is neutral, official, sourced, and correct. Naturally it could be tweaked to better flow with the article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The About MLS page would seem to support no mention of Canada in the opening sentence. It also appears to have been updated just prior to this season, but before Vancouver and Portland were announced. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am under the mindset that the MLS is a USA soccer league that has allowed a few Canadian teams to play in. Those Canadian teams are ineligible for USA's CONCACAF spots and are barred from playing in the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup. There is also a contradiction in the Canadian Soccer League opening statement:

"The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is the top soccer league in Canada and is sanctioned by the Ontario Soccer Association.[1] ."

One of these articles needs a rewritten intro.Ciderbarrel (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Soccer vs United States Soccer Federation

How about you guys discuss whether or not the link should display U.S. Soccer or United States Soccer Federation/USSF here rather than edit warring in main space. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the first instance should use the full United States Soccer Federation name with "U.S. Soccer" in parenthesis. U.S. Soccer may then be used throughout the article. It's just like defining the acronym MLS as Major League Soccer in the first sentence - you shouldn't use abbreviations or nicknames until it has first been fully defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherManNX01 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but this isn't a nickname or an abbreviation. It is like leaving "Football Club" off of "Manchester United." USA Basketball, USA Baseball, USA Football, USA Track & Field, USA Volleyball, etc., etc. These names don't need any explaining before they are used, and this pattern shows that exactly no one should be confused by the name U.S. Soccer. It is the universally used name for the United States Soccer Federation, and follows a format that people are already familiar with. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there are like a dozen more examples here. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

USA Volleyball, USA Baseball, USA Football, et al...those are all the proper names of the organizations. The proper name of the governing body of soccer in the United States is "United States Soccer Federation", just like the proper name of the governing body of basketball in the United States is "USA Basketball". WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant, WeatherMan has a goodpoint. You're comparing apples and oranges with those examples. That being said, I believe the example you're looking for is FIFA. The "proper" name is Fédération Internationale de Football Association but no one in their right mind would write that out in an article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point about FIFA. Another is that "U.S. Soccer" is unquestionably the most commonly used name of the organization, as shown by the fact that "United States Soccer Federation" gets roughly 54,300 hits from Google, while "U.S. Soccer" gets over 653,000. The format "U.S.(A.) Sport" is well-known to Americans, and is completely unambiguous. So the use of "U.S. Soccer" for the first, third, or 468th mention in the article is completely fine, just like we would say "Manchester United" rather than "Manchester United F.C." or "Manchester United Football Club." There is quite simply no reason anyone will be confused by this, especially since it is the more common name by a wide, wide margin. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to play the numbers game with google, then you need to mention that "USSF" get 393,000 hits on Google. However, I wouldn't call Google a great arbiter since it can be manipulated. KitHutch (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I maintain, though, that in each of the "U.S.A. Sport" cases, those are the official proper names of the entities regardless of whether or not they are well-known. The official proper name of U.S. Soccer is United States Soccer Federation (and the article itself is named that). My argument is not one of common knowledge but of proper writing technique - the first instance is the full name, then abbreviations and acronyms may be used. I do understand your points, though, and more often than not I refer to the body as "U.S. Soccer". We talk often talk about sports in abbreviated terms - Pats instead of New England Patriots, BoSox instead of Boston Red Sox, NHL instead of National Hockey League - but in an article, regardless of how obvious it may be to to us, the first instance needs to be spelled out.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but in David Beckham's article we don't say that he began his career with "Manchester United Football Club," before moving to "Real Madrid Club de Fútbol," "Los Angeles Galaxy," and "Associazione Calcio Milan." This is directly comprable to that situation. In the article about U.S. Soccer, of couse we should use the proper name first, but not in articles where we mention it. That would be absurd, as the Beckham example illustrates. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

True, Grant.Alpaugh, but being soccer is an international sport and those are world famous (or in LA's case, well known) clubs, writing AC Milan or Real Madrid does not confuse many. Writing U.S. Soccer, on the other hand, would confuse people who are not as into the sport (specifically Americans). They may think U.S. Soccer implies Major League Soccer. Greecepwns (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly is that? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, forget about my last comment. Sometimes I just need to think before I write...Greecepwns (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am putting back the US Soccer/USSF compromise. Discuss before changing. KitHutch (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Over on the MLS 2009 season page myself and Grant.Alpaugh have ourselves' a grand ole stalemate that I request you all take a look at and hoping join in the discussion to find a solution. I would hope that when it is decided it could stand for the MLS article and not just the season pages. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull New York move request

This has annoyed the snot out of me ever since I started editing MLS articles. Red Bull New York is the name of the corporation that owns the New York Red Bulls, but the article is about the team, including the MetroStar history. If you are interested, please join the discussion here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New Team Locations Map

Proposed new map

I have uploaded a new graphic (at right with no text overally yet) that I believe addresses some suggestions made on the discussion page for the current graphic having to do with coloring and more of Canada showing. It also adds indicators for announced expansion cities and removes the historical markers (no other league does that, I checked NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL). Comments? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made DC look like a Future site- not your fault obviously but that is what has resulted, and I have a problem with KC being shown in Kansas if this is in fact "current/future". I get that KC plays their home games in Kansas temporarily but by the time Portland and Vancouver are in the league KC will be returned to Missouri. I have always been against the highlighted state usage on the maps in the first place and honestly think they are silly and completely unnecessary. Also- why not get rid of the highlighted states and use a Circle to future sites and Squares for current, or used filled in icon for one and unfilled for the other?Morry32 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morry32 that the map should use a different mechanism than highlighting a state to show current for expansion. My only concern is that it is probably going to be difficult to tell the difference between a circle and a square at the size they are on the map. Maybe go with different color dots to ID current vs future. (Yellow and green?) As far as KC goes, the map is supposed to signify the current state of the league. Until the 2011 season, KC will be in Kansas. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also can we continue to include the 96' teams on the map like we do now if we're going to update it? I'm rather fond of that particular feature of the old calendar. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, excellent points. I experimented with yellow and green, but couldn't get a good contrast with the background gray to make it work. The best I could do was to add a black outline around them, but that started to look sloppy. So instead I just made all of the currently occupied cities one color (blue) and all of the expansion cities another color (red). The coloring of the state indicates which conference the team is in (or would be in) except for D.C., but that one's kind of obvious I hope. Also, I'm torn on including the 96' teams. Gateman1997, are you just interested in including the Fusion and Mutiny or is it that you want some indicator for original teams that are still active (or both)? Like a said, I couldn't find any other league articles that bother showing former teams on the map. The newness of MLS certainly makes this unique though. It doesn't have enough history yet around expansion, contraction, merging, and moving to clutter up the map too much with that information. Imagine if they did that on the MLB map (there'd be dots everywhere!). However, since the defunct teams are listed in the "Former Teams" list and the "Founded" column in the table reveals the original teams, my preference would be to not show them in the map. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Bobblehead's Until the 2011 season, KC will be in Kansas thats only where they play their home games- the club's offices and training ground, yes they have a full training ground that will remain after the new stadium is built, in Missouri. The only thing that the club has anything to do with in Kansas right now is where they play 16 times a year and actually last season they played two games in Missouri plus each and every reserve match is/was played in MO at the training ground. I don't think it is just fair to say "KC will be in Kansas". When I brought these points up to the wikifooty community it was decided to pretty much make the main KCW article just read KC instead of either city or state.Morry32 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the map! I like that the western conference color isn't that bright harsh yellow anymore. As for the coloring in general, I don't mind shaded states at the moment. But it's conceivable one day we could have a state (i.e. Missouri) with teams from both the east and west (KC and St. Louis?). Of course they could both be in the same conference so it may never be an issue... Anyway, I'd have two suggestions. Could the map be cropped down closer to Vancouver? As this is the same template the NHL uses, they need their map to reach that far up so their most northern team (Edmonton Oilers) is included. Our map would look better if it could be cropped just a bit more south. My second suggestion would be to include no expansion teams. IMO this map is a current representation of what MLS is today. If we are going to discriminate against some nonexistent clubs (Tampa, Miami), we should discriminate against all teams not in league play. As they enter in, new teams will be inducted into the map. There will always be new teams in the future, and expansion clubs still being organized will always have special mention throughout this and other MLS articles. The map, for me, should be reserved for what the league looks like in its present condition. The past and future can be accounted for in other significant ways. Just my thoughts. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Morry32, your points were convincing for me. I moved the KCW dot across the border to Missouri. I think the location of the team HQ and the future stadium are sufficient grounds for calling them a Missouri team. I followed Blackbox77's suggestion to crop the map a bit since the MLS doesn't currently reach that far into Canada. The new version is uploaded (and the image above is automatically updated) I admit I liked the "forward looking" inclusion of the expansion teams in the map, I think we should keep them. Anyone else have a preference on whether or not the expansion teams should be represented in the map? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind again (well sort of). I removed the expansion team indicators to see what it would look like. I've uploaded that for people to look at. If you click on the image, you can see the history of what I've tried in case you missed the one above. I could go either way on the expansion teams. Anyone else have an opinion? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely like it as is (no extra expansions). It looks great. LIke I said above, expansion teams are very important and deserve their prominent place in the article. But for the map, it represents what the league is, not what the league has been or will be. And just overall, good job SkotyWA. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

recent Vandalism

Anyone have any ideas on the recent outbreak of vandalism to this page? Morry32 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Philly's name was unofficially leaked earlier in the week. It came to a head today, so their is a lot of zolos trying to be the first to get the team's name mentioned on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that, I understand that. I was speaking to the point of IP users suddenly blanking the page and changing silly things. You know Vandalism.Morry32 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's no accounting for vandalism. It comes and goes for no apparent reason. Could be someone is just annoyed their team sucks this year, really dislikes soccer and is annoyed it's getting mentioned in the news, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia MLS team named Union

"To borrow a line from Woody Guthrie, they're sticking with the Union.

That's going to be the name of the region's new pro soccer team, which will take the field wearing blue and gold, people familiar with those decisions confirmed yesterday. The long-awaited official announcement of the team name and colors is scheduled for Monday at City Hall." Full Article
James (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Team cup competitions article

It is silly and trivial but what the heck. I have a name change proposal at this talk page for the article MLS two-team Cups. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Qwest field is soccer specific

I notice that Qwest field has a footnote saying that it is not a soccer specific stadium. I think I've seen enough information to believe that that is indeed not true. SoundersFC.com has a good video detailing how soccer specific the stadium and pitch really is here. Furthermore, articles such as this one from the time when the stadium was first built, make it clear that voters demanded that this stadium not be "football specific" but rather that it be designed and built with both football and soccer in mind. Given this information, I propose the removal of the footnote on Qwest field that I believe is inaccurate. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some digging, and it appears that this misinformation was introduced with this edit. I propose that both the footnote be removed and the prose be adjusted here and in the MLS stadiums page as well. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact the stadium was built with "both football and soccer in mind" immediately disqualifies Qwest as a soccer specific stadium. Soccer specific stadiums are by definition designed to host soccer primarily, not two sports. Now some of the SSS's host more than just soccer, but their primary design considerations were all toward soccer such as capacity, pitch not being crowned, etc... The size of Qwest disqualifies it as a soccer specific stadium by the US definition as it's 60,000+ capacity is almost double any soccer specific stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this assessment. While it may well be true that it was designed to host both, it is in fact a football stadium. Gillette Stadium was also designed to host both football and soccer, but it is primarily a football stadium. Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Philadelphia Eagles, was also designed to accommodate soccer, and RFK Stadium is really a football field that is used only for a soccer team. But no argument can be made that any of these facilities are soccer-specific.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gateman1997, did you look at the article and video I pointed at? The video in particular discusses the pitch crown and how they've kept it down to 6 inches which is a low as you can go without affecting drainage. What I'm trying to explain is that Qwest field was designed from the beginning for soccer. They've been very public about the fact that no concessions have been made in favor of football over soccer. The seating area has been squared off, for example, to allow for the full soccer sideline. Normally football specific stadiums have rounded seating that results in a very narrow sideline around the corners. This is not the case in Qwest field. I'll find some more articles to help illustrate this later today.

Just to clarify, RFK Stadium was NOT built for football. It was originally built for baseball. KitHutch (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

6 inch crown is still a crown. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The point about capacity somehow disqualifying it I really don't get at all. Since when does a soccer specific stadium have to have limited seating? I didn't know that was part of the definition. In fact I think Toronto FC for example is wishing right now that they weren't so limited with their seating.

I guess what would really help here is for someone to provide a pointer to the definition of what constitutes a soccer specific stadium. Right now it seems like it's based on editors opinions which borders on original research. I'm suggesting that I believe that Qwest Field meets the definition of a soccer specific stadium (assuming there is such a definition available). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a definition does exist. I suggest you visit Soccer-specific stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The SSS article is completely unsourced, so it would need to be better referenced before it could be called an authoritative source on what is and is not a SSS. That being said, if we are to take the SSS article as an authoritative source, the primary criteria in regards to seating capacity is the "intimacy" of the stadium, not the actual number of people that will fit in the stadium. I'm a little biased here (season ticket holder for the Sounders), but with the upper bowl tarped off, Qwest is still a rather intimate locale. You don't even notice the missing upper deck and, as any visiting team can attest, it is still acoustically sound enough to make the half-capacity crowd one of the loudest in the league. I'm still looking into this question as I'm not convinced that Qwest is a SSS because it is designed as a Football and Soccer stadium from the beginning and when initially designed it was not intended that soccer would be played on turf, but rather that real grass would be brought in, which would have eliminated the crown. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources that identify Qwest as a "soccer specific stadium". Matter of fact, all of them, including the ones from the P-I and Times around the time of Seattle getting the expansion generally include the words "despite not having plans for a soccer-specific stadium". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gateman1997: "6 inch crown is still a crown." Indeed it is. However, I did some research and found this which indicates that a 6 inch crown is the minimum recommended crown for a soccer field even on a natural surface. I'm sure you already knew that since you were the one to bring up field crown originally, I'm just linking this for everyone else's benefit. So even though the SSS article mentions nothing of some "field crown requirement" I don't think it's actually a valid criticism of the pitch at Qwest Field. I could not find actual documentation for other SSS about their field crowns, but I would expect that none of them are less than 6 inches. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting link, however it's not a FIFA regulation which all SSS and indeed most professional soccer stadiums are built to. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've searched high and low for such a "FIFA regulation" and haven't found anything. You clearly have such a link as you keep explaining the intricacies of it to us all. Well let's get it out in the open. Can you provide me a link? That would be great!.

I want to be clear here. My goal is not to force the point that Qwest field is a SSS based on my own opinion. I'm trying to gather verifiable facts to support this or refute it (even started the conversation with some verifiable facts). Unfortunately, all arguments against have not been based on verifiable facts (including the SSS article itself). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the arguments against SSS status are not lacking facts but are putting forward the idea that no facts exist to support the stands of Qwest as an SSS. Also, the Field of Play is Law 1 in the Laws of the Game (pdf).WeatherManNX01 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the laws of the game. Thank you for the link. I reread Law 1 and didn't see anything about field crown, crest, height or otherwise. Everything I did read there Qwest Field passes just fine (dimensions, markings, etc.). The more interesting test of Qwest Field (which I don't think has been performed yet) will be to give it a 1-star or 2-star FIFA rating (see here). I suspect that such a rating/certification will probably be administered before the MLS cup is played at Qwest this fall. BMO Field (an acknowledged SSS) received a 2-star rating (see here). However, based on the unreferenced counter arguments being presented, I suspect that even such a FIFA rating for Qwest field still won't be enough for some. I pointed at a few facts at the beginning of the discussion that hopefully proved that Qwest was designed for soccer from the beginning however, I confirm (as Bobblehead did) that I have yet to find any sources (MLS, newspaper or otherwise) that refer to Qwest as a "soccer-specific stadium". If I could point to such a source, I think this discussion would be over. Given that most of the arguments against continue to be unverified opinions, I am frustrated. Nevertheless, lacking a source that uses the term "soccer-specific stadium" in reference to Qwest Field pretty much makes any further dicussion moot. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind the phrase "soccer-specific stadium" is a hollow one. It is a catchy slogan that's easily tossed around to build buzz about stadiums (in general — particularly American/Canadian ones) catering to the sport of soccer. In main stream sports media, how often do you really hear the terms "baseball-specific stadium" and "football-specific stadium"? I'll bet not as often as SSS when the subject turns to MLS. When one gets right down to it, these are all just sports stadiums built with intended purposes (like Qwest for Seahawks) but with additional intentions in mind (Qwest for soccer). There is no real dictionary definition on what a SSS really is; it is all made up on the fly...like right now! In fact, I'd propose these qualifiers in the teams table about whether it is SSS or not be removed. For ambiguous reasons like what is discussed here, marking up the table with little numbers only adds confusing and no real value. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I could go for that. At this point, you can count me among the confused. These articles, footnotes, etc. have not clarified anything for me. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with this line "Three remaining clubs play in stadiums not originally built for MLS." Qwest field was built for MLS and the following line says RFK stadium was built as a NFL venue when it was built for baseball. I think the whole paragraph needs to be re-worded.--24.87.16.83 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PGE Park

The Qwest question above makes me wonder if a renovated PGE Park can be considered soccer specific. The stadium's renovation is being designed to not only be a soccer stadium for the Timbers, but also as the football stadium for Portland State University. Given the arguments above, this would seem to eliminate the renovated PGE Park as being soccer specific. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that PGE Park will be primarily the home for the Timbers but will also host other events in much same way Home Depot Center, Crew and Rio Tinto Stadiums do. At this point in time it is not soccer-specific, but it is slated to be renovated into such. That's how I see it anyway.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But until it is renovated and identified as such by outside sources it's not a SSS just like Qwest is not. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Team names

In "team names," Houston Dynamo was deleted as an example of "European-style" names. The editor said "other teams are named Dynamo, but it's not really the same convention or meaning." If this is grounds for deletion, what is Real Salt Lake doing in the same section? Was the club from Utah granted "royal" status by the Spanish crown, too? Or DC United, for that matter. Was the Washington team formed from the unification of two or more extant clubs? Houston Dynamo was never part of the Soviet Dynamo sports society, but obviously it's named in honor of a bunch of successful Eastern European teams -- e.g. Dinamo Zagreb, Dynamo Kyiv, etc. -- the same as Real Salt Lake or DC United. If a club has a European name, it has a European name, and I don't understand why Dynamo isn't an example of the same phenomenon. Deleting Dynamo because it doesn't share the same specific meaning is supremely ridiculous. 12.237.187.26 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor means, that it would have been a European-style name if the club was called "Dynamo Huston", though personally I think it clearly should be listed as a European-style name chandler • 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that Houston Dynamo is an American-style name using the city-nickname system found in American sports. The article itself declares that is has specific meaning to the Houston area. Compare this to Real Salt Lake and D.C. United which took more European style names. Put simply, the use of "Dynamo" in this case does not indicate a European-style name. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the "United" in DC United was related to the fact that Washington is the capital of the UNITED States, and was not intended to be a Euro-copy.--JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression Nike specifically requested it be United because it was a catchy Euro sounding name. But neither necessarily invalidates that it is a Euro style name in the vein of Man U in that it's Euro without actually standing for what it would appear to stand for (ie: two teams uniting as one). Gateman1997 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor that removed Houston from that list was myself and I certainly didn't mean for you to take it personally. If you had an opinion, I certainly wouldn't accuse yours as ridiculous. I'd just ask to discuss it. Here's what my train of thought was: United and Real were designations originally used to signify mergers or official royal significance. Overtime, it became common for them to be adopted as names "just because." There are very old teams named United that were not the result of a merger. And there are also South American clubs named Real with no connection to a king. But no matter how these two names are used, they are used as prefixes or suffixes to complement the core name of a team (Manchester, Madrid, D.C., Salt Lake, etc). In other words, United and Real are meaningless by themselves without name they are attached to. As for the name Dynamo, you are correct mentioning it was picked up by Eastern European clubs "just because" after more historical Soviet teams allowed the name to gather some prestige. But just like the United and Real additions, the Dynamo title is used to complement a club's core name (for example, you'd never call those clubs "the Dynamo" — you'd just call them "Dynamo"). In Houston's case, they are very clearly (IMO) using the name in the standard convention every major sports team here names them self (City plus Nickname). In fact Houston officially and clearly states that it is named for the area's association with the energy industry, symbolic of the people's "energetic, hard-working" attitudes, and alludes to past Houston teams named the "Dynamos" [3]. It just boils down to Houston using the word "Dynamo" grammatically and contextually different than any European club existing before. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Membership timeline

Do we really need a membership timeline? Seems to me the information is already displayed up in the team chart immediately above the timeline making the timeline redundant. That and as time goes on the timeline will become unwieldy as the league adds teams and years pass. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The timeline seems like a good visualization of some of the data contained in the chart immediately above, but it shows more than is contained in the chart. The chart doesn't have entries for Miami, Tampa Bay, or the first iteration of San Jose. For those you have to go to the footnotes and the prose above the table. The timeline brings all that data together. The maintenance issue is a non-issue in my opinion because I had never seen the timeline tool User:RHMI used, but I was able to find the documentation for how to use it pretty quickly and made some adjustments without too much effort. The thing I don't like about the tool is that the images it produces are not high quality. The fonts have some pretty poor antialiasing which makes the whole thing look grainy. To address this I tried an experiment here that I think looks better and User:Gateman1997 may even find it more maintainable. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly though, we could probably very simply add in Tampa and Miami to the chart which solves the only real outstanding issue. As for San Jose's "first iteration", there actually is no distinction made by MLS between San Jose before and after the 2 year hiatus. They're the same team. The only real benefit the timeline gives from my perspective is to give the data a visual element that really isn't needed. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to speak against the timeline as redundant and unnecessary. All of the information included in the timeline is included in the team table. And it somehow just seems out of place - it doesn't really fit into the article.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a fan of the timeline but I can live with it if people are that passionate about it. For some reason it just feels awkward and out of place despite the useful information it reveals. I think it'd work better if a History of Major League Soccer page or something similar existed (like an expanded, more in depth version of this page's history section). Maybe if it was placed in an article similar to the National Football League franchise moves and mergers page but concerning MLS. In its current position, it just feels like an overkill of information. --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus that the timeline is better served in a sub article if it must be kept at all since it does seem to be redundant? Gateman1997 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with removing it. It was a neat idea, but it's a semi-low quality image and it's redundant with the data and prose above. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver expansion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the name for Vancouver has thus far not been revealed, yes? The team table should not have the Whitecaps name listed? Or did I miss something? WeatherManNX01 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stadiums

The Seattle Sounders FC stadium, Quest Feild, was designed for both soccer, and American football. Would that not constitute Quest feild as both football and soccer specifc?

Quest Field:Quest Feild [4]

Qoute From BallParks.com[5]:

"The $400 million football/soccer stadium and exhibition center will be owned by the public and funded by a private-public partnership. Private contributions will total at least $100 million, while the public will contribute up to $300 million through a new lottery and a variety of taxes generated by events in the stadium/exhibition center." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.bushnell (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)