By Jason Davis - WASHINGTON, DC (Nov 9, 2011) US Soccer Players -- As if predetermined as a way bring into focus the ever-evolving nature of Major League Soccer as a competition, the big spending, superstar-laden LA Galaxy will face off against the more typically frugal blue collar Houston Dynamo in the MLS Cup Final. The storyline is as obvious as it is tired. Throw in the added twist that the two teams are both owned by MLS benefactor Anschutz Entertainment Group, and it’s almost impossible to avoid trotting out the well worn tropes about David facing off against Goliath.
Meanwhile, neither team is a stylistic innovator, with both leaning on the tried and true MLS defaults of physical, defensive-minded play. Three designated players or no designated players, the level of spending hardly matters when it comes to how the two teams play.
Turning the disparate payrolls story around a bit, it’s possible to see LA and Houston’s showdown as a referendum on spending versus (relative) frugality for the rest of the League.
Houston’s run to the Final proves that it’s still possible to play for a championship without trying to keep up with the New Yorks and LAs, though there are a few caveats involved. New York’s underachieving season - because by all reasonable measures they had the talent to run away with the Eastern Conference the way LA ran away with the West - eliminated the richest team from Eastern Conference contention. Quirky playoff rules and a tenth place finish took NY to the West and into a match-up with LA, pitting money v. money and “clearing” the way for lower budget teams. Houston’s season, as strong as it turned out to be in terms of their finish in the conference, did not show them to be one of the League’s elite. Nevertheless, here they are, ninety minutes from their third championship since moving to Texas.
The Dynamo deserve full credit for beating Philadelphia and Sporting Kansas City to make the championship game. After all, they were only able to play the teams put in front of them. But does their success truly indicate that staying with the payroll pack is as effective as splashing the cash?
Conversely, LA’s big salaries don’t guarantee them much more than an extra headline or two and the greater attention of the British Isles, so any thoughts that big spending is the way of the future are easily shunted aside. The Galaxy aren’t replicating Barcelona, either in dominance or beauty. Beckham and Keane might help LA win a championship, but they’re not where they are without the contributions of MLS lifers like Mike Magee and Josh Saunders. Couldn’t they have made the same run, much in the way Houston did, with a significantly smaller payroll?
The answer is “yes”, for a variety of reasons, and highlights the truth that LA didn’t do what they did just to win a championship. While AEG (West Coast branch) is willing to spend big money on big names, doing so isn’t necessary to winning. If Houston, with AEG (Texas Branch) backing them to a significantly lower payroll, wins on the 20th, it will bring that truth into full relief. That Houston could win a title playing the brand of soccer that they do - effective, but comfortably within the general MLS style and requiring few special pieces - gives the also-rans no reason to think they’re being left behind.
Those teams that didn’t make the playoffs in 2011 can carry on about their business, resting on the belief that the Houston way - or something similar - will do just fine. That’s good in that most teams simply don’t have the funds available to go above and beyond the salary cap the way New York and LA done, and bad because the combination of average payroll and direct play will keep MLS much too homogeneous.
Stepping outside of the box requires either spending more than most ownerships groups are willing, or taking a risk on a different philosophy with a greater degree of difficulty. Real Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City brought something more dynamic to the table, with a quarter-measure of the spending of New York and LA, and fell short to teams that valued defending, set pieces, and counters. Attacking play as the focal point is high risk, and as of yet, minimal reward.
Major League Soccer’s last four champions were Colorado, Real Salt Lake, Columbus, and Houston. Of them, only RSL could be accused of valuing a soccer style truly distinct from the typical MLS fare, and even Jason Kreis’s side was still in the midst of changing their culture when they made their run to a title. Since, RSL has raised the bar in terms of international competition, but has yet to repeat the 2009 playoff success. That doesn’t mean they’re doing it wrong, necessarily, but it does indicate how difficult it is to break through the glass ceiling.
The commitment and energy needed to sign affordable players that fit a different mentality - and aren’t just a bit of flash in an otherwise straightforward team - is considerable. Few MLS franchises have shown the willingness to take anything other than the path of least resistance.
Eight teams missed the playoffs in 2011. Based on recent history and the evidence on display in this year’s tournament, none of them are far enough away from a title that we can realistically expect them to do much different in the near future.
Come November 20th, when the expensive, defensive-minded, direct-playing, set-piece-loving Western Conference champions face off against the must less expensive, defensive-minded, direct-playing, set-piece-loving Eastern Conference champions, the only thing in question from the big MLS picture point of view will be whether it’s wise to overpay for a championship. No matter who comes away MLS Cup champions, the rest of the League - most pointedly those who failed to make the playoffs - will be able to envision a future where find the right formula, short of any sea change in approach or philosophy, will put them in the same position.
Jason Davis is the founder of MatchFitUSA.com. Contact him: matchfitusa@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davisjsn.
More From Jason Davis:
