Very interesting discussion you got going here Big Tex.
My thoughts:
- I agree with Calgacus with regards to the gold medal wins for the US in soccer. Even though the USA and USSR are (or were) miles ahead of every other nation in terms of gold medal at the Olympics, this is because they competed in many events and so had more chances to win golds. For the USA to win 7 gold medals in "soccer" (I call it football) from 1932, that means they would have won gold 7 out of 19 times or 36.8% of the time. I think that would be pushing it. It is true that other countries have won that much. Canada has won gold at ice hockey 7 times out of 19 Olympics in which it participated (but then only 7 times out of 21 Olympics in total). The USSR was even better, it won 8 times out of 10 Olympics in which it took part (I'm counting the Unified Team's gold in 1992 for the USSR since it was essentially a USSR team). But then again, the most teams that have ever competed in ice hockey at the Olympics has been 16. By comparison, until 1976 16 teams regularly competed in basketball at the Olympics (and intially it was 23 teams). The US has won 12 Olympic golds in basketball, but as you yourself pointed out, after the rest of the world caught up, their winning streak ended. With soccer, it wouldn't be the case of the rest of the world catching up, because even if the US won in 1932 with a hodgepodge team and soccer took off, it would be the US that would be catching up with Europe and South America for about 7-10 years after 1932 ( I use 7 years since by that time the children/teens who were soccer-crazy in 1932 would have gone through the system and would be eligible for senior qualification - assuming they weren't killed in Europe or the Pacific in WWII). My guess would be that the US would win gold in 1932 and then only have a shot again in 1948 (the medalists in 1936 were Italy (gold), Austria and Norway). The strong teams in that period (1900-1940) for the Olympic football seem to have been Great Britain (not England and Scotland separately, but a single team - maybe they need that now to rescue their footballing fortunes today), the Netherlands, Italy, Uruguay and Belgium (and Argentina when they bothered to compete). The US had already won silver in 1904 (where Canada oddly won gold), but beating any of those teams in 1936 to win gold again would be unlikely. After 1948 in any TL where soccer has become popular in the US, the main teams to beat would be Sweden, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and East Germany (notice all the communist countries where "amateur" athletes had a lot of state support). I would figure in 1948 and 1952 the USA would have a chance at being a medalist, but not necessarily gold. Between 1956 and 1976 (6 Olympics) the USA could win at most 2 or 3 golds, but could end up as medalists in 4 or 5 of them. After 1976, I think gold (much less medals) would be harder to come by for another reason that was adequately outlined by Jape and which I will now further expound on....
- Jape was quite right with his England analogy. England is home to the Premier League, but because most of those clubs buy the best players from around the world (which helps to make it the best league in the world), its a good bet that most of the players who take to the field in Premier League matches aren't even English and will probably never play for England.
Another analogy that might be even closer to home is baseball in the United States. Nowadays there are a lot of players from the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and other places that play in the MLB attracted by contracts with the teams. Despite all the MLB money, the USA has won Olympic gold in baseball once (to Cuba's 3) and only won Olympic baseball twice (once when it was a exhibition sport and the gold medal time). This lack of results is partly the fault of the MLB which doesn't allow professional players to partake (and I wonder if something similar would happen with an alternate MLS from the 1950s). For the same reason the USA has won gold in only 3 of 36 Baseball World Cups (Cuba has won it 25 times including a winning streak of 9 tournaments from 1984-2005). Most tellingly, the USA did not make it to the semifinals of the inaugural World Baseball Classic in 2006, which was a international "World Cup" type tournament organized by the MLB to allow professional players to participate. Some MLB players didn't want to play for the USA team, but overall the only country with a significant presence in the MLB to make it to the semis was the Dominican Republic (which is kind of like Brazil in Jape's example - robbed of their best domestically but imbued with players of great natural ability who have been playing for teams who can offer hi-tech training). The US finished eighth in that World Baseball Classic tournament (i.e. the last amongst the quartfinalists). So until 1976 or 1984 most US soccer stars would be amateur players and not necessarily the biggest MLS stars (witness the fact that Brazil has never won Olympic gold at football/soccer probably because FIFA and the IOC didn't allow professionals in the Olympics until 1984).....but then again the TL does suppose that the Olympics displaces the World Cup as the main tournament. If that is the case then FIFA and the IOC would probably allow professionals to compete in the Olympics sooner (but getting the IOC to allow pros in would be difficult nonetheless since they don't embody the "amateur spirit").
Any MLS that forms in the 1940s or 1950s will probably have mainly Americans (and Canadians) to begin with, but as its influence and wealth grows it will attract overseas talent just like the NBA and MLB do today. I would guess that by around 1960 foreign talent would begin to take off in the MLS and by 1976 there would be a lot of South Americans and Europeans (and the odd African) in the MLS teams. The USA would then start to be like England in football - rich, with some of the world's best talent in the domestic league but a declining national side. However, unless this TL changes economic and political history, then the various European Leagues might end up very similar to how they are today with European players plying their craft in clubs all over Europe due to the free movement across the EU and the right to work in any EU country. In England, the Premier League would probably still be formed (maybe even sooner than the early 1990s due to knock on effect of some of England's top players returning from the MLS), so whereas from the 1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s everybody would be trying to get into the MLS, but the late 1970s/early 1980s footballers would be dreaming of going to the MLS or one the European Leagues. By the late 1990s, European involvement in the MLS might weaken somewhat as some of the top European players stay in the leagues in Europe - the MLS would still be able to buy a lot of top quality European stars though. So in the alternate today of that TL, the MLS would have a lot of Latin American talent (Mexico, South America), a slightly diminished number of top Europeans (only the ones who wanted to go and that the MLS paid top dollar for), and an increasing number of Asian and African players (probably more Asian players though as the African players would probably still flock to Europe where they could go League shopping due to the free movement of workers and the few loopholes in the system that are being utilized today). The European Leagues would probably have a lot of European and South American talent, with some American (US) talent with an increasing amount of African talent and some Asian stars.
- Jape also has a point that a US Soccer craze might lead to more international league competition. An Atlantic League or Atlantic Premier League or Euro-American Premier Leauge might well come into existence between the MLS and the various UEFA Leagues. I could imagine that it would either start when the European Leagues started becoming as wealthly as the alternate MLS or when the MLS does something crazy like trying to hold another round of MLS games overseas a la the English Premier League's recent "bright" idea (it was stupid really - far too many flaws and the concept of hold domestic games in another country is just weird).
By the way, who thinks that Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea will be independent of the Football Association (and England) by 2050?
- Lastly, you made a statement in passing, Big Tex (underline added for emphasis):
I think you're entirely right. This alternate MLS would be the equivalent of the EPL on steroids, both figuratively and literally. With all that money and interest riding on the matches, the players would be under immense pressure to succeed...and then some of them might turn to their good ol' friends from the days of high school and university chemistry and biology to..."augment" their natural talents and abilities. I would expect at least one or two major drug scandals, especially between 1970 and 2000 (followed by a massive clean up act and then some intermittent drug scandals from 2000 onwards). Perhaps you could add that to your alternate Sports Column (along with the results of the latest Euro-American/Atlantic League matches and a criticism at the performance of the US national side and the complaints that the success of the MLS is not translating fully into success for the US team)....it would make an entertaining (and strangely familiar) read.
My thoughts:
- I agree with Calgacus with regards to the gold medal wins for the US in soccer. Even though the USA and USSR are (or were) miles ahead of every other nation in terms of gold medal at the Olympics, this is because they competed in many events and so had more chances to win golds. For the USA to win 7 gold medals in "soccer" (I call it football) from 1932, that means they would have won gold 7 out of 19 times or 36.8% of the time. I think that would be pushing it. It is true that other countries have won that much. Canada has won gold at ice hockey 7 times out of 19 Olympics in which it participated (but then only 7 times out of 21 Olympics in total). The USSR was even better, it won 8 times out of 10 Olympics in which it took part (I'm counting the Unified Team's gold in 1992 for the USSR since it was essentially a USSR team). But then again, the most teams that have ever competed in ice hockey at the Olympics has been 16. By comparison, until 1976 16 teams regularly competed in basketball at the Olympics (and intially it was 23 teams). The US has won 12 Olympic golds in basketball, but as you yourself pointed out, after the rest of the world caught up, their winning streak ended. With soccer, it wouldn't be the case of the rest of the world catching up, because even if the US won in 1932 with a hodgepodge team and soccer took off, it would be the US that would be catching up with Europe and South America for about 7-10 years after 1932 ( I use 7 years since by that time the children/teens who were soccer-crazy in 1932 would have gone through the system and would be eligible for senior qualification - assuming they weren't killed in Europe or the Pacific in WWII). My guess would be that the US would win gold in 1932 and then only have a shot again in 1948 (the medalists in 1936 were Italy (gold), Austria and Norway). The strong teams in that period (1900-1940) for the Olympic football seem to have been Great Britain (not England and Scotland separately, but a single team - maybe they need that now to rescue their footballing fortunes today), the Netherlands, Italy, Uruguay and Belgium (and Argentina when they bothered to compete). The US had already won silver in 1904 (where Canada oddly won gold), but beating any of those teams in 1936 to win gold again would be unlikely. After 1948 in any TL where soccer has become popular in the US, the main teams to beat would be Sweden, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and East Germany (notice all the communist countries where "amateur" athletes had a lot of state support). I would figure in 1948 and 1952 the USA would have a chance at being a medalist, but not necessarily gold. Between 1956 and 1976 (6 Olympics) the USA could win at most 2 or 3 golds, but could end up as medalists in 4 or 5 of them. After 1976, I think gold (much less medals) would be harder to come by for another reason that was adequately outlined by Jape and which I will now further expound on....
- Jape was quite right with his England analogy. England is home to the Premier League, but because most of those clubs buy the best players from around the world (which helps to make it the best league in the world), its a good bet that most of the players who take to the field in Premier League matches aren't even English and will probably never play for England.
Another analogy that might be even closer to home is baseball in the United States. Nowadays there are a lot of players from the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and other places that play in the MLB attracted by contracts with the teams. Despite all the MLB money, the USA has won Olympic gold in baseball once (to Cuba's 3) and only won Olympic baseball twice (once when it was a exhibition sport and the gold medal time). This lack of results is partly the fault of the MLB which doesn't allow professional players to partake (and I wonder if something similar would happen with an alternate MLS from the 1950s). For the same reason the USA has won gold in only 3 of 36 Baseball World Cups (Cuba has won it 25 times including a winning streak of 9 tournaments from 1984-2005). Most tellingly, the USA did not make it to the semifinals of the inaugural World Baseball Classic in 2006, which was a international "World Cup" type tournament organized by the MLB to allow professional players to participate. Some MLB players didn't want to play for the USA team, but overall the only country with a significant presence in the MLB to make it to the semis was the Dominican Republic (which is kind of like Brazil in Jape's example - robbed of their best domestically but imbued with players of great natural ability who have been playing for teams who can offer hi-tech training). The US finished eighth in that World Baseball Classic tournament (i.e. the last amongst the quartfinalists). So until 1976 or 1984 most US soccer stars would be amateur players and not necessarily the biggest MLS stars (witness the fact that Brazil has never won Olympic gold at football/soccer probably because FIFA and the IOC didn't allow professionals in the Olympics until 1984).....but then again the TL does suppose that the Olympics displaces the World Cup as the main tournament. If that is the case then FIFA and the IOC would probably allow professionals to compete in the Olympics sooner (but getting the IOC to allow pros in would be difficult nonetheless since they don't embody the "amateur spirit").
Any MLS that forms in the 1940s or 1950s will probably have mainly Americans (and Canadians) to begin with, but as its influence and wealth grows it will attract overseas talent just like the NBA and MLB do today. I would guess that by around 1960 foreign talent would begin to take off in the MLS and by 1976 there would be a lot of South Americans and Europeans (and the odd African) in the MLS teams. The USA would then start to be like England in football - rich, with some of the world's best talent in the domestic league but a declining national side. However, unless this TL changes economic and political history, then the various European Leagues might end up very similar to how they are today with European players plying their craft in clubs all over Europe due to the free movement across the EU and the right to work in any EU country. In England, the Premier League would probably still be formed (maybe even sooner than the early 1990s due to knock on effect of some of England's top players returning from the MLS), so whereas from the 1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s everybody would be trying to get into the MLS, but the late 1970s/early 1980s footballers would be dreaming of going to the MLS or one the European Leagues. By the late 1990s, European involvement in the MLS might weaken somewhat as some of the top European players stay in the leagues in Europe - the MLS would still be able to buy a lot of top quality European stars though. So in the alternate today of that TL, the MLS would have a lot of Latin American talent (Mexico, South America), a slightly diminished number of top Europeans (only the ones who wanted to go and that the MLS paid top dollar for), and an increasing number of Asian and African players (probably more Asian players though as the African players would probably still flock to Europe where they could go League shopping due to the free movement of workers and the few loopholes in the system that are being utilized today). The European Leagues would probably have a lot of European and South American talent, with some American (US) talent with an increasing amount of African talent and some Asian stars.
- Jape also has a point that a US Soccer craze might lead to more international league competition. An Atlantic League or Atlantic Premier League or Euro-American Premier Leauge might well come into existence between the MLS and the various UEFA Leagues. I could imagine that it would either start when the European Leagues started becoming as wealthly as the alternate MLS or when the MLS does something crazy like trying to hold another round of MLS games overseas a la the English Premier League's recent "bright" idea (it was stupid really - far too many flaws and the concept of hold domestic games in another country is just weird).
By the way, who thinks that Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea will be independent of the Football Association (and England) by 2050?
- Lastly, you made a statement in passing, Big Tex (underline added for emphasis):
Big Tex said:....We're talking vast amounts of money, vast amounts of TV, radio, and net exposure, all the greats would come here. Think NFL+NBA. Think EPL on roids. It would be far and away the most dominant sports organization on the planet.....
I think you're entirely right. This alternate MLS would be the equivalent of the EPL on steroids, both figuratively and literally. With all that money and interest riding on the matches, the players would be under immense pressure to succeed...and then some of them might turn to their good ol' friends from the days of high school and university chemistry and biology to..."augment" their natural talents and abilities. I would expect at least one or two major drug scandals, especially between 1970 and 2000 (followed by a massive clean up act and then some intermittent drug scandals from 2000 onwards). Perhaps you could add that to your alternate Sports Column (along with the results of the latest Euro-American/Atlantic League matches and a criticism at the performance of the US national side and the complaints that the success of the MLS is not translating fully into success for the US team)....it would make an entertaining (and strangely familiar) read.