Coming to America

Good! That way it's not all on me to report this sort of thing... That can only be good for the site.

I doubt that Beckham will be the best player in the League, but he'll still be treated like a God, yes. I think that when he doesn't do as well in MLS as people think he will, it will show just how poor a player he has become.

True, if he shows a tremendous drop off in his abilities that bubble of a world that he lives in will burst around him quickly. Also I said argubably, till he proves otherwise Beckham at least has the right to be listed among the leagues top players

Treated like a God? This is still soccer and the US we're talking about here. Being God of MLS would be like being the President of the Herpes Fan Club.

$250 million to play in MLS? If MLS is smart, they'll cut all the soccer out of their ads and just flash a $250,000,000 check. That will get people to come to the stadium at least once.

To be fair, LA bought him, not MLS. £120,000,000 I heard (which is just under what you suggest), so that's £24,000,000 per year. Or £200,000 per week. That makes him probably the highest paid footballer in the world - no Premiership player is on as much as £150,000 per week. So, LA overspent. This was a money move by Beckham.

Oh, and cpcp, I think you mean "cheque" :)

MLS will just increase the cap to allow Beckham to play. He won't play for them until the end of the Spanish season, in May-June time.

I think they have a $$ player exception, 1 per team, but it can be traded. Max of two per team. DC just traded Freddy Adu for one, I believe.

They do indeed have a rule. It's been dubbed the "Beckham Rule" in anticipation of when Beckham would jump to the States. Basically each team was granted an exemption for one player; by using the exemption, the player's salary won't count against the cap

Why does no one listen? He gets paid 50 mil/5 yrs by his team, and the rest of the money comes through endorsements

Beckham is overrated. That was a horrid team that England put on the pitch this past Cup. Ill give Beckham credit if its a restart or a set play I still want him to take the kick, but in the flow of the game, he has lost his step. Im sure he could have gone to a lower level Premiership team, but Beckham is a celeb and he goes where the money and the cameras are, and he knows he can be a big fish in a little sea in the MLS

He declined at Real for many reasons. He would not have got a game, and LA offered him more money. A Premier League team would have been interested in him yes, but they knew full well he'd go to the club that offered the most money. West Ham, Bolton, or even Chelsea wouldn't pay someone anything like this much money. Our best player in the World Cup was John Terry, without any doubt. Beckham did what he always did - he had one excellent game, followed by a nondescript one. Admittedly, his goal against Ecuador was very good though. And Hargreaves did better than Beckham too.

Well, the England team was good, but it had no Chemistry. The defense was brilliant. Our strikers were injured. Peter Crouch is never going to win a World Cup. Our midfield was the problem. We had two attacking-midfielders in Gerrard and Lampard. Beckham on the right, and Joe Cole on the left. Without Beckham, now Gerrard is on the right, it is perfect for Carrick (who has been a revelation) to come into a more defensive midfield role. Or even Hargreaves. I thought Beckham would be a great player to have in the squad, even if he doesn't start, if only for his experience. He can come on in the last 10 or 15 minutes and he may have brought something to the game. Our biggest World Cup problem was squad selection - Darren Bent, the top scorer in England that year (that was English) had to go, but wasn't picked.

Yeah, but everyone knows that has always been one of his faults (contributing in-flow). I don't think he's ever been 'great' per say (at least never on par with Ronaldihno, or even Christino Ronaldo for instance). He has been lambasted for the past couple of yrs (even back at ManU) and the criticism has only worsened since his not-great play at Real. From my perspective, to be over-rated means that everyone thinks you are better than you are. However, despite his shortcomings, he can still contribute and he showed that during the world cup when everyone else on the england squad didn't bother to show up.

He hasn't ever been truely great - he has just cashed in on his celebrity wonderfully. I assume you're English, and hence understand this, there are no real over-rated cricketers in the same way as Beckham because there is relatively little celebrity involved. He could contribute, but after the World Cup I think he should have been relegate to squad member, in much the same way that England's aging Rugby players did in the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

Agree that bent being overlooked in favor of a hobbled owen and a neophyte walcott was an awful decision. And hargreaves perform better than most anyone expected. But like you said, beckham could at least have some value coming off the bench as so many aging englishmen do (sheringham for the hammers). Especially if there was a chance of the game going to penalties, since that appears to be a particular weak spot for ingerland.

thx for the compliment. but while i am from jersey it's the other jersey - "joisey".

Euro 2004 Quarter Final v Portugal. Enough said.

Er... Channel Islands Jersey, or New Jersey, USA?

Joisey. Diner and toxic waste dump capital of the world. Home of the sopranos.

Here's a list of the 10 best things about New Jersey...

. . . . . . .

.

I think Beckham is a good (not great) player when plugged into the proper situation. I think the reason why he's been lambasted by so many is that he was so overhyped during the prime of his career. He was undoubtedly the most famous player in the world, but clearly not the best, but because of his fame and the magnitude of his name, Becks was often thought to be better than he really was. Now as he has gotten older, the reverse effect has occurred; now rather than people overrating him, they underrate him. People see Beckham and due to his fame they expect him to be among the best, which he clearly isn't, but I still think he's a good player when utilized correctly. I think Becks was unnecesarily dropped from the English squad. I understand that the coach wanted to move forward and try and break ties with the Sven Goran Erickson era, but he still should have kept him around.

Americans know him and some can even spell his name! ;-) Just kidding. Seriously though, it's still soccer. His celeb buddies might come out for a few games, but there's nothing at a soccer match to keep a socialite busy. Jack ain't going to be sportin' shades on the side of a pitch, it just won't happen.

As a Villa fan, Villa didn't want him. No-one would pay that much for him.

What if you could've had him on a discount (say a bit less than Real offered)?

No - it would have to be a HUGE discount. Villa aren't in the financial position.

Quite certainly, it's a different demographic. They can support an NBA team, can they not.

Yeah, soccer and basketball have the exact same appeal in the U.S., so you're right (note the sarcasm) It's also a town that supports a WNBA team, so what's your point?

That LA can support pro leagues. What was your pt, that they cannot support an NFL team? I didn't see where anyone argued that they could? Look at the avg turnouts. MLS is draws very closely to what NBA does and has been around for 1/5 of the time.

MLS draws the same size crowd of NBA games in stadiums that are 3-5 times BIGGER.

Not true. Soccer specific stadia are smaller. And isn't it true that NBA arenas are sized based on the amount of fans they could expect to attend? That if the games were in larger sized stadia they would not be able to fill them?

compare the largest NBA stadium to the smallest soccer stadium and then get back to me. I said L.A. is a town that can't support AMERICAN football... a reference to the term football

NBA arenas aren't bigger because it would make watching the game pretty damned hard.