Salem was home for the "Nameless Market" for many years. Payless Drug forced them to give up using the name Payless Market.

We've been having lots of fun with that out this way, too. Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys hasn't been shy about the obscene price he's demanding to rename Cowboys Stadium, and every company that's been ready to pay that price ends up going into a financial hole just before everyone signs the paperwork. (Of course, the way Jones has overspent on everything involving the Cowboys, I'm starting to wonder if the Cowboys go bankrupt and defunct before some dotcom wannabe can get its logo on the side of the stadium.)

Jack Bog: Would you like to go on the record on when you think the MLS will go bankrupt? I'd like to know when I can come back and tell you that you were wrong (or admit my own stupidity, if it works out the other way).

Three years? Five years? Certainly long before Lord Paulson's cushy deal with the city is concluded.

The supply of rube owners who want to pay a huge fee to own an MLS franchise is finite. It may already be tapped out. After that, the only real money is in TV. NBC is going to put some games on one of its cable outlets, something like NBC5, and they'll be lucky if they average 400,000 viewers a game. That ain't gonna cut it.

Portland will always go for soccer, but without a decent league the team will fail.

Portland may always go for soccer. You're right. Your arguments about the league failing are pure conjecture and speculation. I've seen enough to be willing to bet in a decade MLS is more popular than the NHL. MLS is intrinsically tied to the US national program. If ESPN, or NBC wants television rights to US mens, womens, or World Cup rights they have to deal with MLS. That's how it works.

Though your "within 5 years the league will fold" Nostradamus prediction is interesting you're literally just like one of thousands that predicted the same thing in 1996 yet here we are in 2011 and the league is thriving. Time to put your money where your mouth is and say what type of crow you'll eat if the league is still solvent in 2016. Gentleman's bet? Dinner at Ringside on you followed by a Timbers game in 2016 if I win or dinner at Ringside on me followed by a Blazers game in 2016 if I lose.

Yuck. Why would I want to spend time with some argumentative soccer dandy? I'd rather catch up on deferred dental work.

First of all, this is not 1996 -- I don't care who said what back then.

in a decade MLS is more popular than the NHL.

MLS doesn't have that kind of time to wait for cash flow.

MLS is intrinsically tied to the US national program. If ESPN, or NBC wants television rights to US mens, womens, or World Cup rights they have to deal with MLS. That's how it works.

The networks have all the money, and they'll do whatever they want. And besides, FIFA isn't going to throw too many bones to Garber and his used car lot.

MLS is weak soccer and a weak television property. Always has been, always will be, and now it's over-extending.

Hey Whatever - Here's what the future of soccer in the US looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League

That's right it will go the way of the NASL from 1968 to 1984. It will fail. All I ever knew about the NASL is that one of my cousins was a cheerleader for the Lancers. And as far as I know the Lancers never drew half of what the Redwings (Rochester's AAA baseball team) drew.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/12/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/MLS-SUM.aspx

Information, to the rescue!

Odds are this post won't see the light of day, but I will try to add sanity to the conversation anyway.

"Three years? Five years? Certainly long before Lord Paulson's cushy deal with the city is concluded."

If I had a nickel for every time a blogger/commenter said MLS will fold within 3-5 years I would be well on my way to a million dollars. There is a select group of individuals on the internet that are obsessed with proclaiming for the last 20 years that soccer will not be played in America in half a decade. Congrats on joining them.

"The supply of rube owners who want to pay a huge fee to own an MLS franchise is finite. It may already be tapped out."

Yet people from Detroit, New York, Tampa, Indy, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, and several other cities want an MLS club. These are all individuals are willing to pay the franchise fee.

"After that, the only real money is in TV. NBC is going to put some games on one of its cable outlets, something like NBC5, and they'll be lucky if they average 400,000 viewers a game. That ain't gonna cut it."

I didn't know NBC Sports (formerly Versus) was such a poor station. Also mind pulling up the cable channel ratings for every other league?

"First of all, this is not 1996 -- I don't care who said what back then"

Yes, let's ignore history because it means nothing anymore.

"MLS doesn't have that kind of time to wait for cash flow."

Soccer United Marketing says who needs time when you already have solid cash flow.

"The networks have all the money, and they'll do whatever they want. And besides, FIFA isn't going to throw too many bones to Garber and his used car lot."

Contracts prevent you from doing whatever you want, you know like the contracts that say MLS/SUM own the TV rights to the World Cup in America.

"MLS is weak soccer and a weak television property. Always has been, always will be, and now it's over-extending."

Yet you offer no valid proof of this. The ratings are poor you say? Check the ratings of every sports league outside of the NFL. Aside from a select few teams, the ratings remain poor. The soccer is poor you say? Being a self-proclaimed soccer hater sure makes you an expert on soccer.

"Hey Whatever - Here's what the future of soccer in the US looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League
That's right it will go the way of the NASL from 1968 to 1984. It will fail. All I ever knew about the NASL is that one of my cousins was a cheerleader for the Lancers. And as far as I know the Lancers never drew half of what the Redwings (Rochester's AAA baseball team) drew."
After this year MLS will surpass NASL in age. But you willingly admit you know nothing about the topic in your post. Here is some info for you:

NASL had 63 teams in 16 years. MLS has had 20 teams in 16 years. NASL had 45 teams fold in 16 years. MLS had 2. NASL had 18 teams move in 16 years. MLS had 1. Which seems more stable? The example you use from the past or the modern MLS?

NASL was poorly run and couldn't stick with a plan. NASL is used as an example of what not to do. In conclusion, history won't be repeated.