From the SoccerScribe. As prolific as ever -

Watch any MLS game and, if you take notice of the sign boards, you will see the one right at midfield every time the camera pans back and forth that blares: AMERICA'S SOCCER.

A nice thought but, coincidental to Don Garber's "branding" strategy (not a coincidence that it is part of the strategy but a coincidence that it's a nice thought and part of the strategy.) I couldn't help but sigh as I watched Chivas-San Jose Saturday night, seeing the black-and-silver board scroll repeatedly as Paco Palencia and Juan Pablo Garcia ran past several times. I didn't feel exasperated that Mexicans were playing in "America's Soccer" league (I thought Jorge Campos was entertaining, Carlos Hermosillo was legitimate, and that Luis Hernandez was a doof), but I shook my head knowing that two players from OUTSIDE of "America's Soccer" had become the two highest paid players IN "America's Soccer."

Last week I learned that Palencia - a former Mexican national team forward -- had eclipsed Landon Donovan's approximately annual salary of about $970,000 with an annual contract worth $1.3 million; and that Garcia - a regular in the current mix of "El Tri" -- also climbed past with a paycheck of about $1 million.

It was disturbing from the perspective that Donovan is arguably America's best. Those that want to promote Claudio Reyna or DaMarcus Beasley, go ahead. To me, Donovan has played more often, more consistently and better than anybody else on the national team, and also is MLS' most recognized player.

Why he would be relegated to third-best paid in the league to further a concept which I believe is suspect at best and racist at worst is mind blowing. I never endorsed, nor even liked, the idea of Chivas USA. To me, it appeals to the worst in humanity, a balkanization along racial lines - that Mexican immigrants will only and can only identify with, support or like a "Mexican" team.
Chivas doesn't want to appeal to soccer fans; it wants to appeal to Mexicans. It would be like MLS setting granting an expansion team to Philadelphia, calling it the Liberty and saying it wanted to a build a team of American whites only to appeal to the significant suburban youth and amateur playing population in the area.

The United States was built by immigrants. Our ancestors - if not our parents -- were all immigrants, even those who crossed the Bering Straight! But they became Americans, bonded if not by geography than by purpose and hope for a better life.

Chivas USA doesn't appeal to people's personal history, such as being born in Cleveland and remaining an Indians fan after moving to Los Angeles as an adult, but to an unwillingness to merge into the United States like the countless millions who have come here before them.

I harbor no ill will against Palencia, Garcia, or any other player - native-born or foreign - in MLS. This screed is not to decry neither Palencia nor Garcia but the notion that Jorge Vergara's team will improve MLS or is even acceptable. It may make money (and right now it's not), but that doesn't make it a good idea.

To me, it only gives some another crowbar to keep or pry people apart.Doug Logan didn't like the idea of luxury boxes because he generally believed it separated fans along economic lines, and that without the boxes fans all had to mingle together and share their experience of being a fan of a club team. A game used to bring people together, if only for a few hours.MLS fans, American or immigrant, all have (or at least had) the same complaints about coaches, player acquisition rules, referees, stadia, etc. Chivas USA changes that. MetroStars fans may dislike D.C. United because of Dema Kovalenko, or the Fire just because, but to create a rivalry - with every other team in the league -- based on race is not only asking for trouble, it's just wrong.

MLS general managers even theorized last year that Chivas would be the "Freddy Adu of 2005", i.e. driving attendance wherever the club went because of an expected animus against it.
The league supposedly has a $1.7 million per team salary budget. Well, MLS has spent $2.3 million on two players for Chivas alone.

It's kind of ironic that only a couple of weeks ago Vergara was quoted as defining the differences between the Mexican league and MLS as that MLS had rules but in Mexico the only rules were that the rules changed constantly. Maybe that concept is being imported too.

Making the money is the purpose of ANY commercial enterprise, but it shouldn't have to come at the cost of integrity. And if MLS is "America's Soccer" than why is it spending more for two players to attract non-Americans that apparently don't consider the league worthwhile in the first place primarily because it is American than it is to pay the standard bearer for the league?

Good for Palencia and Garcia that they can command such compensation. I condemn MLS for saying one thing, and doing another.