MLS and the media – is loyalty displacing objectivity?
by Kartik Krishnaiyer
Earlier this week I penned an article I sensed would arouse controversy over at World Soccer Talk . However, the reaction has been largely positive from the comments and on social media. My basic premise was that many bloggers who cover and write about Major League Soccer have a skewed perspective or a clear agenda.
I personally have serious issues with how the Frank Lampard matter was handled by MLS’ and US Soccer press. What initially looked like a possible FFP dodge by Manchester City, now appears to be more of a question about MLS’ transparency. But with the FFP dodge narrative averted large elements of the US Soccer press have rallied around MLS in a defensive manner
Manchester City didn’t want to play any games with UEFA’s FFP police so they signed Lampard directly to a playing contract. But Major League Soccer and Manchester City’s sister club NYCFC continued to characterize Lampard’s stay in Manchester as a “loan,” up until December 31st. Why would MLS go through great lengths to deceive the public? And following this why would the cadre of US Soccer journalists that will always back MLS in these matters run to defend the league and attack City Football Group (CFG) who owns both clubs, who had been merely enabled MLS.
The probable answer is that MLS and particularly Don Garber has been so desperate to see the second New York team launched and successful for years now that he was willing to do whatever it too to get CFG to invest in MLS and to continue to be happy. CFG became an easy target for US Soccer journos many of whom have an inferiority complex already with anything European. Using Major League Soccer as a feeder league to fund a club in a major European division made CFG the culprit.
No analysis was given of MLS’ failure to align transfer windows with Europe so that players like Lampard, David Beckham, Robbie Keane, Thierry Henry and others can join American clubs in a normal fashion. No discussion was had in the US press about how consistently relying on signing Designated Players on free transfers leaves MLS open to this sort of thing, where Manchester City can offer the player a short-term deal and not have to worry about international transfer clearances since Lampard was moving from within England.
The Lampard fiasco might actually benefit MLS in that it has knocked the discussion of NYCFC’s failure to make progress on the stadium or permanent training ground front off the radar. Having promised TV networks a strong second New York club, a more viable second Los Angeles team, as well as a Miami team in the near future, MLS should have serious damage control to do.
But instead the narrative is focused on Manchester City and the selfishness of Frank Lampard and his desire to play for a Premier League title rather than on a baseball pitch in New York or on artificial turf in Orlando (where NYCFC opens its season).
Lampard and Manchester City have been cast as the villains in the US and MLS as the victim. Should we have expected any differently?
