The real reason behind Chelsea’s US trip
Blue Winner over at the Chelsea blog Blue Champions pops the question and then explains the reasons behind Chelsea’s tour of the US.
Well Chelsea is making the usual pre-season tour and this year they have returned to the football hotbed of… the United States. I am sure that you, as well as I, spent some time pondering why the Blues did not host a set of games, or perhaps tour the continent, rather than trekking to California to participate in all things Beckham. Well, it actually makes sense when explained the way the club did. Just prepare for some more riders to the bandwagon.
BW lists publicity, money (financial benefits) and competition (playing quality sides like Club America) as the main reasons behind Chelsea’s romp across the States.
The competition and money arguments are sideshows though - the real deal behind Chelsea’s regular pre-seasons to the United States is their need to dominate the new US market as part of Chelsea’s strategic objective of rivaling clubs like Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Liverpool and Manchester United as one of the biggest clubs in the world. The States is one battleground Chelsea feel they can win in, and they have made significant progress in this area.
For a detailed discussion of Chelsea’s tour to the US, read the original article:
Related Items from Soccerlens
- EPL Travel Guide Review
- Chelsea’s and Liverpool’s push towards Far East is madness
- The mind-games between Liverpool and Chelsea can’t hide the truth
- Manchester United v Portsmouth in Nigeria - a prelude to Game 39?
- Chelsea plan a trip up China’s whaazoo
Thats the reason all teams go on these tours isnt it ?to ‘crack’ the market.will they do it over in usa? Dont really know.i mean will the fans take to a team that are winning 1 0 against teams like bluewings and galaxy?yes its preseason but the fans do want to see attractive performances with goals before they support these teams.
Taehr - just shows that you didn’t watch the match. Chelsea played some great stuff and on another day would’ve won more comfortably. They also scored a cracking second goal which was (incorrectly) ruled offside.
The US market is one that Chelsea is more apt to crack than any other club save United.
English team - check
Quaint stadium - check
Awesome crest and kits (blue ones anyway) - check
Willingness to spend to win - check
Recent history of success - check
Marketable superstars - check
I think they have a half-gait over United just for the fact that a lot of U.S. fans despise the “all love Manchester” ideology around teh globe and would like to see Chelsea take them down. I think this will even out over the enxt couple years as Chelsea continue their success.
I think they failed miserably if there goal was to woo Americans to their side. The product they put on the field wasn’t much better than MLS. One-nil wins, where the play is excruciating slow and there 8 to 9 men behind the ball isn’t going to get anyone excited about their club.
I think they failed miserably if their goal was to woo Americans to their side. The product they put on the field wasn’t much better than MLS. One-nil wins, where the play is excruciating slow and there 8 to 9 men behind the ball isn’t going to get anyone excited about their club.
Exactly my point brian
If you had actally watched all of the games you would see how terribly wrong you are Brian.
The Gaalxy played their best match of the year Saturday night while Chelsea had a bad first half. The Galaxy were bunkering down 10-11 men behind the ball on defense, and it is had for any team to score against that. As soon as the second half started, you immediately could see the difference between the two sides, as Chelsea was world class and absolutely dominated. A rightful goal was called back, and Chelsea cold have wn that game 3-0, 4-0 if a couple great saves weren’t made by the Galaxy.
I know you were not watching Suwon either because the Blues were absolutely running them up and down the pitch the second half, and easily could have won 3-0, 4-0. They dominated play again with an uptempo offense and made Suwon look terribly inferior.
I think it’s laughable that you think the Chelsa side was even comparable to MLS; the Blues dismantled their oppnents with unparalleled chemistry and skill moves, particularly in the second half. If you are trying to compare that style with MLS, you are a terrible football fan; the difference between the sides, particularly Saturday night’s second half, was so apparent that it was incredible and laughable at times.
Give the MLS players credit too; everyone thinks they are a bad league, but were talking 2nd or 3rd tier US atheletes here and they are still very good.
Yes bw but at the end of the day the score wat still 1 0 whether or not u could have won 3 0 or 4 0.that compared to united who are blowing teams away in asia.remember when united went to the u.s and did the same 3 years or so back. Fans in usa wont support chelsea just because they have big names they want to see attractive free flowing football or soccer as they call it and ultimately goals,goals,goals.how many have chelsea scored 4?
Your match against Urawa on the Asia tour - how did that go again? Oh that’s right, free flowing football resulted in a 2-2 draw.
If you had watched any Chelsea amtches from the US tour, you would see the more up tempo attack being played by them, rather than trying to turn this into a “Man Utd tour was better than Chesea’s debate.”
Free flowing football is what football fans take to. Entertainment is what fans take to.putting on a show is what fans most importantly love.which i why in my opinion chelsea wont be such a hit in the states.just my opinion
Free flowing football is what football fans take to. Entertainment is what fans take to.putting on a show is what fans most importantly love.which is why in my opinion chelsea wont be such a hit in the states.just my opinion
No offense, but if you aren’t from the United States, as I believe you not to be, then you have no knowledge about this topic.
Sports in the United States only succeed with high profile, marketable athletes (aka Beckham) and an influx of scoring and exciting plays. Intertwined with this, American sporting cluture is not rooted in the tradition of a game that takes only one 10-15 minute break during the game.
If football never becomes popular in the States, it will not be because the game isn’t exciting enough. People here want to see awesome athletes with ridiculous stats, stats stats who then win lots of championships while at the same time pitching Adidas, Gatorade and Mentos. The networks will never allow it to become popular because as long as they take in little revenue from commericals and advertising during a match, they will not pay the MLS any hugely substantial amount of money in order to broadcast those games. Thus, the greatamount of American sporting fans will see little live football action, and instead depend on ESPN’s Sportscenter highlights for goal videos. BEcause of the rarity of these, ESPN spends maybe 10 seconds on each game (Saturday was an exception) and promotes nothing positive about the sport. SO, no TV action, little scoring, what is left? Marketable athletes.
That’s why the BEckham signing is so important; the NBA was nothing until Magic vs. Bird, and then Jordan pushed it into the stratosphere with his arrival. Now, the NBA is declining because they don’t have that “guy” to take it to the enxt level. Baseball suffered after the 1994 strike wiped out half the season and the World Series, only to be resurrected not by great play but by a battle for the single season Home Run record between two teams that were only marginally decent.
In the U.S., the athlete is the most important factor in making a sport popular; coupled with mind boggling stats (the bigger the better; Americans don’t understand a goale very two games is good) the athletes drive interest in the sport, not how it is played.
Thanks for the insight brian
Taehr, sorry but your comments dont stack up with what actually happened in the US.
The football played was good and pretty exciting, the only thing missing was a few goals and Jose has already said that shooting practise wasnt part of the training over in the US so he expected a few rusty shots.
Chelsea played either 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 (using 2 wingers in the midfield 4) so the emphasis was on flowing attacking football, which is generally what happened.
Also remember that the first game against mexican side was only after 4 days training so what can you expect.
If people eant to comment on how well Chelsea have done at least watch the games first and then comment.
BRIAN W,
“soccer” in America needs a beckham,a player who is known over there and can raise the profile short-term. but surely there is going to be a time when there is a need for players who play attacking football, and can sell the game’s most attractive qualities like its fluency,players who play entertaining football, like a ronaldinho or zidane. isn’t it the argument in america that football is too low scoring? that will not change with beckham, and it is a problem that chelsea have had in their few games over there as well as being a criticism when they play back home.
Attacking football isn’t going to change the philosophy of low scoring football here; at most,a team that plays like that only nets 4 goals a game. That isn’t enough to change American philosophy on football, because all sports here have become so indivdualized in the Sportscenter era that most fans don’t care about how a team plays anymore, and if they do its sports that either put up high scores or focus on individual standout athletes with huge statistical numbers; like I said, 30 goals in 60 games is awesome, but that won’t cut it over here,because the next question coming out of an American’s mouth is “Why not 45?”
Your name leads me to believe you live in North London, and trust me, any culture that you experience there is TOTALLY different than the one here in the States. Baseball is considered low paced and yet millions and millions go to the games each year because of the emphasis on the athletes on their stats. Beckham goes a long way in helping legitamize football here, but the game is still too complex and too boring for most fans to support it, exciting football or not.
Wisey.what was missing was the most important part of football.goals.and what is football without goals?boring.whether ur from states,uk or africa.
It doesn’t matter if it was boring. We already established it would take more than anything Chelsea could have done to earn a substantial showing of support here in the States. Besides, Chelsea played much more offensively during the U.S. tour with the reversion to 4-3-3; the will score a lot more goals this year and only give up 20 something. If they do that, they’ll win the Prem or at least finish 2nd.
Taehr,
Get the games into perspective, before slagging chelsea off. They were pre-season friendlies, they cvam off the back of the 1st week of actual training, so the main idea of the games is for fitness and for the players to get back inti the swing of it. If you think that there were going to be loads of goals then you were\are sadly mistaken.
At this stage of pre-season all the players are interested in is fitness and avoiding injury. Goals will come as the players get fitter.
Here in Australia, Sydney FC are playing LA Galaxy in a month or so, Why because Becks is at LA.
Also there is a condidtion, If Beckham is injured it will be postponed!
Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory and the FFA have been contomplating a Australia Cup (Working Title lol), where LA Galaxy, Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory and Chelsea! Will play in a game against another team, it will be a knockout cup, and the Aussie Teams will play Chelsea or the Galaxy so that it will be a galaxy vs Chelsea final.
What un saying is that Chelsea will come to a country just for the cash. The price chelsea gets for playing in teh tot=rnament in Aus…
7.5 Million, if they win they pocket a 2 Mil pay check PPFT!
Here in the states, everyone just doesnt like soccer. All the matches are slow and low scoring. Chelsea coming over wasn’t a big deal it was all about beckham at the time. Chelsea are no way near as big as liverpool and manchester united.