US Open Cup: Under Scrutiny

The Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup is the longest serving tournament in the American soccer landscape at 109 years old. For many the tournament generates a historical reverence and respect only famous monuments tend to receive. Yet, despite its historical importance to the history of the sport in America, it is under attack by a league (MLS) that for all purposes is in stark contrast to what soccer is in almost every other part of the world. A league with a design to shelter and protect its members from all the unpleasantries clubs elsewhere else have to deal with on a regular basis. I am referencing the exposure teams the world over face when they compete in their national cup competitions. The exposure to “the Upset”. Arguably the greatest aspect of any sport and more directly these nationally held club soccer/football tournaments. The chance of an upset is what gives character to these tournaments. It provides the local media and fans alike the chance, for a fleeting moment, to embrace, enjoy, or commiserate the result of their team's win or loss. It is precisely this emote that encapsulates the mystique and allure that draws in fans new and old. But for Don Garber and MLS, the US Open Cup represents an eye sore, a blemish on the product (MLS) they are trying to cultivate and portray to the world and local viewers.

The MLS Perspective

The position of MLS was made clear at the most recent Q&A at the recent U.S. Soccer Federation board of directors meeting in Frisco, Texas, where Garber spoke, stating the US Open Cup was "a very poor reflection on what it is that we're trying to do with soccer at the highest level" (Jeff Carlisle/ESPN). The statement holds true when considering the objectives of MLS, which give importance to boosting and expanding its brand visibility worldwide. So Don Garber is correct in stating that the US Open Cup does little to enhance it. However, the tournament is not intended to do so, as it has existed for a substantial amount of time before the inception of MLS as a soccer/football league. Still, I can see where Garber is coming from. As the head of MLS, it's his job to show that the MLS is a competitive and strategically advanced footballing entity while also shielding the owners from any unfavorable criticism related to their respective teams. However, that is the beauty of the US Open Cup. It exposes MLS and USL ownership to the potential humiliation of lower-league teams causing upsets.

During his speech, Garber expressed his frustrations and criticisms regarding the tournament, citing its difficulty for viewers, including himself, and the subpar fields on which the games are played. Saying it's "hard to find for viewers -- including himself -- and [the games] are played on subpar fields.” Although valid points, these issues are a result of the current state of soccer in America and are not specific to any one tournament i.e. the US Open Cup. On top of that the MLS has little grounds for gripeing since the league itself uses turf for the majority of its teams' playing surfaces. A shocking choice for playing surface, given the fairly recent revelations by the recent study conducted by the NFLPA about the increased chances of injury on turf as opposed to natural grass. In which the researchers found there was an increased risk of injury of around 32% while playing on turf.

Regardless, Garber further goes on to iterate how the competition's games poorly reflect's on the MLS, stating that they are not representative of the product the league wants to present to a large audience. He acknowledged the enthusiasm surrounding the tournament but stressed the need for improvement in the U.S. Open Cup to truly reflect professional-level soccer in America. Garber's commentary on the state of fields in the lower leagues is well founded. However, the state of the fields is partly due to the lack of funding which trickles down to lower league organizations. A problem that still persists despite the US Soccer Federation's founding many years ago.

The Flip Side

Garber's latest comments raise valid points, and it's difficult to discern whether his intentions stem from disrespect towards the cup or a desire to spur the USSF into action on important matters. Nevertheless, the merits of his remarks cannot be denied. Only he knows but I am leaning more toward the lack of respect and overall disgust that cup upsets cause by diminishing the strength of the MLS brand. And therein lies the smoking gun. MLS is not as strong from an on-the-field product standpoint as billed in the media. If you watch the latest US Open Cup fixtures you can see that there isn't this great gulf between clubs within MLS and USL. Just look at last year's open cup final where Sacramento FC of all teams was within touching distance of hoisting the Lamar Hunt Trophy. This fact is what truly haunts MLS and it is what concerns and frustrates the ownership group. A group that has lived and operated in isolation since 1993. MLS's golden child position, its ivory tower place in the American soccer landscape has in fact hindered its growth and shielded it from the failings of its predecessor the NASL. But also hindered its own growth and credibility among many fans unfamiliar with the league structure

Yet, despite all its preferential treatment the teams within MLS struggle against sides from the lower leagues. Why? Well, the answer is multifaceted but it begins with the closed nature of the league. Having a league where there is no promotion or relegation doesn't allow teams within to get a true measure of where they stand as an organization in their home country's footballing landscape. National tournaments like the Copa Del Rey, FA Cup, Coupe de France, and so on give teams from all levels within the professional league set up a chance to prove themselves against the top teams within their national footballing ecosystem. This is not to say by any means that a team from the second, third, or fourth division has any allusions that they are on par with the teams of the first. Monetary differences alone make that abundantly clear. However, what these localized national cups do is allow the teams from lower divisions to gauge how their own players stack up against players from the first division and vice versa. Additionally, these national tournaments provide an opportunity for young academy players to make their debut on the field and gain valuable experience towards their own development as players.

This fact is no more pertinent now than it has ever been given the fact that the U20 World Cup is just around the corner. A tournament that holds great significance for all footballing nations, as it serves as a prestigious platform for showcasing young talent capable of making an impact at the senior club level. This then begs the question of why a league like MLS is taking such a stance on a competition that from an outsider's perspective has all the perks an organization could ask for. Especially since the US club soccer calendar has historically been bleak, in regards to the number of fixtures for MLS clubs to compete in on an annual basis.

This has changed as of late with the recent additions of the Leagues Cup, and CONCACAF Champions League to the club soccer calendar. Both of which I think are excellent additions for clubs throughout the federation and North American soccer landscape. Yet, they are tournaments that cater to the top tier leagues within each country which leaves out the smaller clubs from accessing this money generated from competing within the above-stated competitions. This makes the US Open Cup all that more crucial as a competition for the development of young players and exposure for lower leagues. It is just flat-out short-sighted from a top executive of the United States' top soccer league. The comments are especially, nonsensical since the competition itself draws attention by being so inclusive and unpredictable which thereby increases the viewership and health of the sport.

One additional benefit of this competition is that it provides MLS teams, who may not have a viable opportunity to compete in the MLS Playoffs, with a chance to acquire some hardware for their trophy case. Additionally, the team that emerges victorious in the US Open Cup earns a spot in the prestigious CONCACAF Champions League, which is where the real money is made. Making the US Open Cup all the more crucial of a tournament for all participating teams. Although it might not hold the same status or allure it once did, it remains as important to some clubs today as it was when it first began.

However, there seems to be a desire within MLS, real or implied, to close the cup off completely to teams outside those operating within MLS, creating a closed cup. Yet, the name "US Open Cup" raises the question: if it is an Open Cup, who is it open to? The answer should be clear: it should be open to all.

Im sure fans would undoubtedly agree that an open competition is the only way to go. Just take a look at the recent Sheffield Wednesday game and their unprecedented comeback win over Peterborough (4-0). The attention and excitement generated by such results breathe life, magic, and sustenance into any competition. It is moments like those experienced by the Sheffield Wednesday fanbase that make the US Open Cup special.

In the end, I genuinely hope that the US Open Cup remains exactly what its name suggests: open. Open to all teams, embracing the spirit of competition and offering underdogs the chance to shine. Let us uphold this cherished tradition and ensure that the US Open Cup continues to embrace openness and accessibility in the years to come.