What will happen with Chivas USA?

A bomb dropped on Major League Soccer yesterday. The league is buying Chivas USA from Jorge Vergara and plans to keep the team in LA, for now. But let's not kid ourselves--we saw this coming.

If anything, a Chivas rebrand might be the best thing that could happen to the league if it really wants to move on to better things. Since 2005 the expansion side has tried to turn LA into a city of two soccer teams. For a time it worked and Chivas had serious quality when Preki was coach. Since then, however, the team has struggled and has been a type of "assured-points game" for stronger teams whenever they played.

The original intent with Chivas USA was to provide the significant Mexican presence in Southern California with a team they could truly call their own. The "Rebaño Sagrado" was the perfect fit, it seemed, since it is one of the most prominent teams in Mexico. 

One of the more curious things about the early Chivas USA was the inclusion of a heavy Mexican developmental contingent, which in retrospect was more of a stunt aimed at the local population than dealing with soccer reality. It was believed that Mexican players had an advantage being developed in a soccer community but this never translated into quality on the pitch. This, in addition to a parade of coaches, added to the misery experienced by the LA team.

But does Los Angeles really need a second soccer team? Are there really enough Chivas USA fans out there or were they always de facto Goats fans because their main team was Chivas Guadalajara? The latter is more likely to be the case.

Indeed, a case can be made that The American Goats was an experiment and that, however flawed, offered something fundamentally different from the glamor of the LA Galaxy and all that it means to the city. Chivas was often an afterthought only to be brought up for the so-called SuperClasico. And yes, at times those games were fun when Sacha Kljestan, Jonathan Bornstein and Brad Guzan played for the Rojiblancos, but the "derby" never quite caught up and was overshadowed by the Portland-Seattle rivalry when it arrived.

A move away from the LA area would serve the former Chivas team best and would benefit both the Galaxy and the league as a whole. And the team need not move too far. San Diego has been hoping to land a tier 1 soccer team for a while now, and deservedly so. It is a town rich in soccer culture and a strong market with Mexican influence that would provide a great fan base.

Los Angeles continues to run the soccer world in this country.  From Galaxy II's development in USL to the rebranding of Chivas. What else can the City of Angels give to American soccer?

What's happened to Mexico?

Let's face it. Few teams around the world have as many fans as the Mexican national team. That is a fact. And I'm talking real, true Mexican-born fans, not the bandwagon fans that Brazil, Argentina and France get along the way to the World Cup. And yet it seems that the Mexican team, all Mexican national teams in fact, are in a constant state of negative flux.

Why is this? The players? The coaches? The team owners? The federation? My take: all and none. All because they have repeatedly failed at achieving important goals like qualifying for the Confederations Cup, the Olympics and the U-20 tournament. Hugo Sanchez was sacked and now Eriksson has been sacked. I'm not an expert in these matters but I've heard and read enough about the squabbling delegates of the Mexican soccer Federation that stalled various plans and included their own pet projects into the system. That last one is Vergara, owner of one of the most financially successful teams on the planet--Chivas de Guadalajara. He insisted on bringing a European name to the coaching vacancy left by Sanchez. He failed at getting Scolari and settled for Eriksson.

Did Vergara's pet project and gamble work? Yes and no. The team played differently and added a few names to the fold--Vuoso, Augusto, etc. Interestingly, some of these players were not Mexican-born. Eriksson also gave a lot of opportunities to youngsters like dos Santos, Martinez and Vela. A welcome sight if sometimes an unnecessary gamble.

Still, Eriksson failed at what he was brought to do. Win tournaments and win every Concacaf game. Let's rewind to last fall for a moment. Mexico was pooled against Canada, Honduras and Jamaica in the second round's group of death. Admittedly, all those teams deserved a spot in the Hexagonal. So when Mexico left the Azteca after getting all 9 points at home and gathered only 1 from a tie in Canada, heads started to shake. Was this so bad? A loss in Kingston, Jamaica. The Reggae Boyz are very good at home against most oponents. Why couldn't Mexico lose? Then there was a tie in Canada. The relative "minnows" of the group still have players with considerable abilities--de Guzman, DeRosario, Onstad are just a few. And finally, a loss in Honduras. 1-0. Was is so bad that they lost against the probable number 3 team in the conference?

Friendlies against Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile and Sweden were 2 losses and 2 wins on American soil. All of those games included reserves on the roster due to the fact that they were played outside of FIFA dates. Then comes the Hexagonal. An opening match against the US in Columbus and a loss they should have seen coming. The US held their own and made the home soil count. Mexico did the same against Costa Rica last Saturday. It injected "confidence" into the team and coach. Really? Then why the 3-1 loss to Honduras in San Pedro Sula? Because Honduras really is that good. That's my take. Maybe a 2-1 was more deserving for Mexico but that's football.

So who's really to blame here? Eriksson had only a limited amount of time to get used to Mexico, the style of play and other idiosyncrasies of the Azteca game. Mexico was given a tough schedule in the preliminary round and also to start the Hexagonal. If they had started at home vs USA then a visit to El Salvador and at home against T&T things would be different. It was foolish to let him go at this point. Aguirre (in-coming coach and the coach that lost to USA in the 2002 World Cup) may do only what was expected to happen anyway... qualify for South Africa. Can he inject more spirit into the team? Sure. Can he do the same for the fans? Why not. And the federation? They sure hope so. Aguirre is their "savior" and if he doesn't pan out it will be difficult to truly nail down what could be wrong with Mexican play. Too many players abroad that don't care about the national side? Sure, we've all heard that before.

Mexico has quite a few dollars invested commercially in terms of the national team. This is why Sanchez was ousted. Never mind the awesome play the team displayed in the Copa America 2007. Sanchez didn't need to be the u-23 coach. Bradley sure wasn't for the US. That job went to Peter Nowak. Maybe Mexico should have considered that and Sanchez could have had more time with the nats to make things smoother. Then again, Vergara, Martinez and other FMF owners had considerable input in the matter. Is that where the fault lies? The caprice of one or two team owners? I hope not.