Talk:Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

When did MLS turn a profit?

"MLS teams have turned a profit for the first time in US soccer history and attendances are better than the league predicted a decade ago."

Please put a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.142.147 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

MLS as a league has not yet turned a profit (or at least not that's publicly disclosed). In 2007, Forbes did an analysis of the league and found the 3 (of the then 13 teams) were profitable, but the league as a whole was not yet. link --SkotyWA^T_C 01:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Forbes now claims the league is profitable anyway, with a net operating income total between the nineteen franchise of 34 million (based on 2012 season, so doesn't include the expansion fees of NYCFC or Orlando). Jackson Scofield (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

NHL

So I see the archive there, and I don't want to re-start the argument, but someone last week seems to have unilaterally decided that the NHL is not a major sports league. No discussion on this? 76.223.75.144 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense how someone can just take the NHL out of this article. On average it draws only about 800 less fans per game than the NBA and is the 5th most profitable pro sports league in THE WORLD. 203.188.87.40 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted back. --necronudist (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NHL

So I see the archive there, and I don't want to re-start the argument, but someone last week seems to have unilaterally decided that the NHL is not a major sports league. No discussion on this? 76.223.75.144 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense how someone can just take the NHL out of this article. On average it draws only about 800 less fans per game than the NBA and is the 5th most profitable pro sports league in THE WORLD. 203.188.87.40 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted back. --necronudist (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

CFL

The CFL section should be greatly trimmed; much of it doesn't belong. Specifically:

The CFL is considered a major sport in Canada, being second only to the NHL.

• Quite likely, although I think the CFL is not very far ahead of the NFL or MLB in Canada, especially in Toronto. Can you find a source for the claim?

Actually, the CFL is very far ahead of the NFL and MLB, both leagues TV ratings hav been in decline in Canada since the 90s, while the CFL TV ratings have been on the rise every year since 2000, even the NHL has been in declince.

Proponents of the CFL being a major league point out that...

• Don't you mean "being considered a major league in Canada?" No one would ever consider the CFL to be "major" in the U.S.

About time they did, I'd stay.

People in Canada certainly consider it a major league. Also, when Baltimore had a CFL team (the Stallions), I doubt you'd have anyone there consider their team a minor league club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.168.104 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the NFL has no teams in Canada (although in the NFL's defense this is largely due to government intervention in order to retain the distinctly Canadian game as part of Canadian culture).

• While it's true that the Canadian government did keep the WFL out in the 70s, the lack of an NFL team in Toronto now is undoubtedly because there are better markets in the U.S., not because of government intervention. I doubt the government would try to keep the NFL out nowadays, but putting a team in Toronto wouldn't make financial sense for the league.

agreed, Toronto would have a hard time affording it, and TO doesn't care much for Football, see International Bowl.

A good compromise position, held by many notable Canadian and American football players and fans, is to use the term gridiron football to include both the Canadian and American games, and define gridiron football as one of the four major sports, with the NFL and CFL its leading major leagues.

• I have never heard of this.

I would rewrite the whole section as follows: "Canadian Football League - Canadian football, with its own distinctive rules and history, rivals MLB, the NFL and NASCAR in popularity in Canada and may be the second-most-popular sport there behind ice hockey. However, its status as a "major league," even in Canada, is questionable, as most of its players are those not good enough to play in the NFL, and salaries are comparable to the Arena Football League."

No good enough? oh yeah, that's unbias. Just becase they aren't of size (fat bastards) to play in the NFL doesn't mean they aren't good enough to play football.

With respect to your statement "as most of its players are those not good enough to play in the NFL." I strongly disagree. CFL players are not "inferior" to NFL players, it is a slightly different game see Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_football - however, I do agree that the CFL is a Canadian game, and should not be listed in an US-centric article. Tawker 05:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't go ahead and change it now unless no one responds to this comment. Mwalcoff 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole page should be split into 2 different pages: "US major professional sports leagues" and "Canadian major professional sports leagues". This might avoid any edit wars or whatnot. Obviously, the 2 countries have 2 entirely different definitions as to what constitutes a "major" league. (I am American, BTW.)--CrazyTalk 19:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The first blurb is taken from Canadian football. The gridiron compromise is actually fairly common where I am from. On a related note, years ago the NCAA have tried to put a BCS game in Toronto, but was blocked (I'm not sure if it was the CIS or the government). Also recall that in the CFL's failed US expansion, virtually every US team (except Baltimore) were stocked by former NFLers and the like - and were really bad teams (Baltimore had guys that knew Canadian football well - perhaps that's why there are quite a group of Als fans in Baltimore even today). NFL stars playing in the CFL have also found out that their American skills don't translate into Canadian success (Lawrence Phillips is a good example). I can't see any valid claim as to the CFL players as being "not good enough to play" in the NFL (which IMO is an inherently POV statement). kelvSYC 06:22:33, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

1. If we look at this 2002-03 poll of Canadian adults, we can see that the CFL ranks eighth among favourite sports to watch in Canada. If we look just at men (who are more likely to be sports fans), the CFL still is tied for fifth, behind pro and amateur hockey, the NFL and even soccer. (I'm surprised too.)
2. I live in Kitchener-Waterloo, but the only people I know who say "gridiron football" are Brits.
3. Actually, it's the city of Toronto that wants to host a bowl game, and it's the NCAA that has rejected the idea [1].
4. I'd bet that 99% of CFL players would rather be playing in the NFL and making NFL money. Many CFL stars are NFL castoffs or rejects. Ricky Ray was cut by the Jets. Henry Burris threw 51 passes in his NFL career. Casey Printers was undrafted and unsigned out of college. This is not to knock on the CFL or say that its players lack talent. But that the level of talent in the NFL is higher than that of the CFL is so self-evident, it should not be considered controversial.
5. Lawrence Phillips was hardly an NFL star. He played 35 games and ran for a measly 3.4-yard average per carry. In the CFL, in contrast, his stats weren't bad, but he was kicked off the team for behaviorial reasons. Mwalcoff 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue with the pay difference - many where I'm from consider Canadian footballers to be grossly underpaid (the salary cap that de facto does not exist...). Then can we say that the rise of the NFL in the media prompted the fall of the CFL in the talent department? After all, there was a time when top football managers both sides of the border wanted a crack at the best stars on both sides of the border. kelvSYC 02:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That was the 1970s, where the CFL and NFL were equally popular among Canadians.

For the record, the CFL is still more popular than the NFL in Canada. [2]

Arena League

I would venture that the Arena Football League should be mentioned on this page, but in a slightly less respected capacity than that of the NHL's. While hockey has history on it's side in argument of proponents, the AFL or 'Arenaball' has the moderate success that is quite impressive of an organization that is only 20 years old.

Also, at 20 years old, it is the 2nd-longest running professional football league in the United States. Unlike other attempts that competed against the NFL in varying ways and fizzled quickly, the AFL built slowly and steadily and even partnered with the NFL at certain points to become the respectable entity that it is today. There's a network television contract, several nationwide sponsorship deals, and even an EA Sports video game. With television ratings comparable or better than the NHL's, ratings better than those of MLS or the WNBA's, and attendence figures at just as high a stature, it's hard to deny that the Arena League has found a place in the sporting culture.

Finally, there is the on-field argument to be made. It is the highest league at it's own sport, as the game itself requires an only somewhat similar athlete to the NFL's and the AFL does run a developmental minor league, arenafootball2.

ESPN itself has even labeled it the "Fifth Major" in it's various mediums. Why not do so here, even if to a certain extent?

• Not that I'm disagreeing with you in anyway, but everyone knows the Arena Football game is so no one else could make officially licensed football. There was a Kurt Warner game made in who knows when, and then all of a sudden, when EA gets exclusive NFL, they also get exclusive College Football, and now they want to make an Arena game?--Attitude2000 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with the Arena Football comment. It's a sport in its own right and, as mentioned before, it's been labeled the Fifth Major by ESPN, and probably exceeds the NHL slightly in actual popularity.

The only major problem with the sport is that people keep looking at it in the context of the NFL.

"There's no defense!"

"Why are the scores so high?"

"I want to see some running!"

It's a different sport derived off of American football. --TopGear 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• I would imagine most of the US consider the AFL quite far below the NHL. Not really a comparison when you look at the overall picture (salaries, sponsorships, markets, history, etc).
• While I agree that it is its own sport, most of the country sees it as a minor league to the NFL. That is supported by many of the players making the jump to the NFL after seasoning in the AFL. The players don't aspire to be the best in the AFL and believe that is the pinnacle, but rather aspire to make it in the NFL.
• ESPN has also eluded to MLS/Soccer as the 5th major sport, and now with top world stars coming to the US like Beckham, their new 10-year TV deal, and relative salaries, I would venture to say they're leaning that way now.

Major sports outside North America

I would like to edit this bit slightly, just to mention that as of 2005 the Bundesliga of Germany is not as strong as others in Europe, but that there has been various periods in European football history when it has been the strongest, or at least in the top three, even in the last 10-15 years it has had more representation in European finals than England. I would also like to omit the mention that the Eredivisie of the Netherlands is considered a major league as it is quite widely considered to be a small league totally dominated by three big clubs, who although being very successful in the past are currently struggling against losing their most talented players to the major leagues. In addition to that I would like to say that the Ligue 1 of France is perhaps emerging (as French football a whole has done over the past few years) as a major force rather than as always being one, and that the French league has traditionally been seen as weaker and their teams fairing worse in European competition than those of leagues like the Netherlands, Scotland and Portugal for example.

It's all quite subjective really - what makes a stronger league? One with a handful of clubs who regularly win European competitions, such as Russia, Portugal or Netherlands, but a big drop off to the quality outside of those clubs? Or one with a wider range of clubs who can compete accross Europe but fewer 'big clubs' such as France? I wouldn't like to say. The current article I think reflects reality failry well by using the G14 as a measure. --Robdurbar 10:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We could link to this page which has a chart of UEFA league rankings over time. --Robdurbar 10:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(I am new. Who is the author of the first paragraph in this section? Did Robdurbar delete that info at 10:32 or 10:41, 26 May 2006? I know from the documentation that I might distinguish myself by indenting every paragraph with two colons, one more than anyone else has used in this section, but I can't believe that is right. So this long parenthetical remark distinguishes me. Blech.)

By the way, the next section is right on. Even now, after I don't know how much editing, the article needs more in order to pass muster as major rather than USA major.

How historical should the article should be? The USA section covers a lot of years but it isn't very historical. For ice hockey alone it discusses the prehistory of the current major league and mentions the major status of those competitors; otherwise it is silent on majority.

On the other hand, how much should the article reflect current events? Where there are multiple major leagues, they will differ in strength and those differences will vary over time. Analysis of playing strength or economic strength is possible at the season level, if not shorter, but leagues should not be called "major" season-by-season if playing strength and/or economic strength is touchstone.

By the way, this is the entire first paragraph of the article, and no more appears above the table fo contents:

The major professional sports leagues are those professional sports leagues with the largest fan bases and television audiences (and therefore, the largest revenues and player salaries).

Is it serious, focusing entirely on economic criteria? This discussion is full of playing strength and the article is full of formal relationships such as distinguish major and minor leagues in the USA. P64 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Soccer, Cricket

I think that there needs to be a lot more information on the major football (soccer) leaugues around the world, because right now, the article seems to be too slanted towards US leagues. The problem is not too much info on the Big Four in the US (it is excellent), but too little information on the soccer leaugues. Information about cricket, wildly popular in certain parts of the world, should also be included. Otherwise, I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Major US sport leagues" BishopOcelot

I agree today, wondering whether it was even worse whenever this comment was new.

Is there a reference list of professional sports, at least by nation or world region, maybe by league. That is, do we know where in the world different sports are played professionally so that the concept of major professional competition is applicable?

Or is "major" rather than "professional" the primary keyword? Example. I say cricket. You say where in the world it makes sense to make major:minor distinctions about cricket play or cricket leagues. That might be a subset or a superset of where in the world cricket is played professionally. I am willing to listen, either way. P64 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexican First Division needs to have a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.106.37 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Major League Soccer

With regrets, I deleted the entire part about MLS and replaced it with a link to the proper Major League Soccer article. The MLS article is the place for all of these facts about the league, not here. You'll just end up duplicating all the effort.da bum 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, though gave it a more relevant (to this article) introduction -16 February 2007

Again with regrets, I deleted the following text:

However, until 1) all league teams have stadiums of their own, 2) MLS raises their salary cap to compete with the biggest and best leagues in the world, 3) MLS attracts more stars of that quality, 4) more American soccer stars shine on the world stage, and 5) MLS is featured more in the general public's eye, it will remain somewhat outside of what most Americans consider to be a major professional sports league. The next few years will show how this is coming along.

I put it here so that the labor is not lost. I think it only needs documentation. If these are facts, and someone can document it, then I for one am all in favor of putting it back.da bum 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharks as Seals/Barons?

I have a bit of a problem with one sentence:

However, this merger was officially dissolved in 1991, and the Seals/Barons franchise returned to the Bay Area, resuming independent operations as the San Jose Sharks.

Really? I thought that it was generally accepted that the Sharks were a completely new franchise, and had no connection to the old Seals/Barons franchise. As far as I know, the Sharks do not acknowledge the Seals' history as their own (unlike the Carolina Hurricanes do for the Hartford Whalers' history, or the Phoenix Coyotes with the Winnipeg Jets' history), and all franchise records for the Seals are not considered Sharks records. The only place I've seen this claim is on Wikipedia, and even then the Seals' article states

In many ways, the Sharks can be considered a revival of the Seals franchise.

It is not saying the Sharks are the Seals, but rather saying they could be. To me, I don't think that's enough of a reason to state that the Sharks are the former Seals franchise in this article. I think it's a bit misleading, and should be changed. NeoChaosX 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's murky. What actually happened is that the corporate identity of the Seals/Barons franchise never actually went away after the merger. Gund tried to move the North Stars to the Bay Area; he was refused. But, the NHL at the time was eyeing expansion anyway. What happened, in the end, was that the merger was legally dissolved, Gund sold the North Stars half, and was left with the "expansion" half. He was then able to grab 25 players from the North Stars organization and both teams were equal partners in the resulting expansion draft. So, yes, as far as the league is concerned, it is in fact a new team; it has no claim to the Seals/Barons history (nor would it want to!!) but the corporate legacy is that of the Seals.

Sort of like a company buying another, then spinning it back off a few years later under a different name. It's explained pretty well in a book by former NHL president Gil Stein 24.174.145.108 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ich bin sat - not! (That rhymes.) No, not satisfied. Key points

1. "the Seals/Barons franchise never actually went away after the merger." - What does this mean? I doubt that Gund cast two votes at league meetings.
2. "the merger was legally dissolved" - merger of what? What was dissolved, as far as I can tell from this discussion, was some merger of rights to players. That is an aspect of the "franchise" in a sense, but it is not the club or the franchise, closer to the team(roster).
3. "as far as the league is concerned, it is in fact a new team; it has no claim to the Seals/Barons history" - but does it have any claim or liability re the Seals/Barons history elsewhere, if not the league's concern? For example, would the state of California be concerned one way or the other whether the maybe-new club retained the papers of the California Golden Seals? P64 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Something new in the issue has come up; according to this message, it turns out the book that's cited for the Sharks' origins says nothing about the North Stars/Barons merger being dissolved when the team was created. With this in mind, would it be acceptable to change the language of those sections now? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it seems the whole misconception that the 1991 expansion was a "de-merger" came about because the same people who owned the Barons in 1978 also owned the North Stars in 1991 and "traded" it (sold to a 3rd party, actually) for the Sharks' expansion franchise, leading to the weird 1991 dispersal and expansion draft. These could easily lead one to believe that the Sharks corporate entities were spun off of the North Stars, when in fact they are two distinct, separate entities separated by 13 years that just so happened to have the same owner. Since the North Stars owners at the time, *and* the former owners of the Barons, the Gund brothers, were to be the new owners of the Sharks, selling the North Stars in the process, they got to take a good chunk of the North Stars with them. Strange, huh? BTW, the last player selected in that expansion draft? None other than Guy Lafleur, who was already in the Hall of Fame and had come out of retirement a few years earlier. He promptly retired for good rather than leave Quebec for Minnesota. I had a good laugh at the time, knowing that Lafleur going to Minnesota was about the most unlikely event imaginable... SpanishCastleMagic 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

Major League Baseball (30 clubs as of 2006, formally founded in 1920 though constituent leagues began cooperation in 1903).

• What was established in 1920? Was the name "Major League Baseball" used in a legal document?
• A lot of what is in this article, especially comparative account of major leagues wars, depends on treating "major league baseball" from 1920?/1903? rather than the National League from 1876 as the major league. It isn't true that major league baseball (lowercase) vanquished its rivals pretty easily where major league football struggled to fend off its recurring rival leagues, incorporating 13 rival clubs. That is true of Major League Baseball (capitalized) in contrast to the National Football League, but only because we begin the history of M.L.B. in this sense after most of the m.l.b. rivalry and accommodation was done.
• The second Louisville club in mlb was not so short-lived, 1882-1899, and the river was recently if not quite any longer the main way cross-continent. The mlb history of Richmond was indeed short and also more Southern, a real step off the beaten track.

("What was established in 1920?" is a serious question. I am not boldly resaying anything on Louisville or the South, a relevant example here, because I need to read some replies, articles, and boilerplate first. P64 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's make it US only

This article should deal with N. American sports only, otherwise we're just trying to force other sporting cultures into a US template. The main reason for this is that for a lot of sports national team competitions are as important as domestic leagues. eg football, and to an even greater extent Cricket and Rugby. The US model of the 'Major' league dominating the entire sport simply doesn't apply to other countries. The only exception is Australia, which is why it was added first here, but why not give Australia its own page rather than have it and then the rest of the world as an afterthought.

Much of the rest of the world bit is vague and has little to do with any sports leagues. It also seems to back up a stereotype of association football dominating everywhere apart from North America. For some reason until recently the example cases of somewhere where football doesn't dominate were Finland and Lithuania (population under 10 million) rather than India and Pakistan (population 1.3 billion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.204.215 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Clearly, this article is talking about the top 4 pro leagues in the us. People, this online enclyclopedia is used by people around the world, not just in the U.S.A. The title needs to be changed to "Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues." I had done this once before. If we agree that it should be done, let's work together to make it that way and keep it that way, shall we?da bum 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A rename should not be done unless you either move or rewrite the "Major professional sports leagues outside North America" section, which takes up the second half of the article. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if you rename it, it should be "Major North American Professional Sports Leagues" since we are talking about leagues such as the NBA, NHL, MLB, and now MLS (with the new Toronto FC) that have teams in Canada). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to anyone involved, I messed up trying to rename it. Asked for help from wiki-admins. I think I know how to do it right next time.da bum 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I "moved" the article (changed the name) to Major North American Professional Sports Leagues. Now, how do we split this article into two separate articles? (The section called, "Major leagues outside of North America" can now be its own article. I would recommend making several articles, including: "Professional Sports Leagues of South America;" "Professional Sports Leagues of Africa;" "Professional Sports Leagues of Asia;" etc. The term "Major League," as discussed, is more of a N. American idea. What do folks think of these proposed changes? There are about 100 articles - many in California - that link to this article in the context of Major League Baseball, etc. I think the article had that context in mind. That's why I think splitting the article as described is a good idea. da bum 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Treading new territory in relation to the point of this article... Which is more "major league": NLL or MLL?

Exactly what I was wondering. So, in this article the "major league" teams go in the table on top, the "minor league/other" teams go in the list down below (see?) so, where to put MLL and NLL? da bum 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Defunct Major Leagues of North America

This is an idea. What major leagues have gone out of business over the years in North America? We could mention some of the more important ones here. I would put this section at the end of the North American section and just before the Outside of N. America section.

Fixed broken rename

Someone tried to rename but instead moved Talk:Major professional sports league (yes, the talk page) to Major North American Professional Sports Leagues. I've fixed it; next time, please click "Move" from the main article, not from the talk page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 07:48Z

Sorry! And apologies. da bum 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Major league sports outside North America

This section definitely needs to come out of the article since it has been moved. But to create a new article, less still one called "Major league sports outside North America", is very doubful. The whole idea of a "Major league sport" is a very North American concept that is not recognised elsewhere. The material that is currently in he article just got tagged on because there was an article called major league sports and doesn't have a lot of value, IMO. I vote to remove it completely and replace it with a simple see also listing FIFA, International Rugby Federation, World Cricket Council and some major continental federations like UEFA for Europe. --Concrete Cowboy 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Concrete Cowboy's suggestion to delete and add simple references. With all due respect to those who contributed to this section, I think it will amount to duplication of information found elsewhere in Wikipedia. So, I vote for deleting this section. What do others think?

For apparent lack of objection over the past month, I'm going for it. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

North American or just US-Canadian?

There is no mention of the Mexican, Central American, Caribbean or even Greenlander leagues. While Central America and the Caribbean have their own regional competitions they are also North Americans.

The Mexican leagues are strong, speacially the Primera División de México, a football (soccer) league, the top ranked league in North America, clubs of the 3 nations of the North American zone may compite in the North American SuperLiga (if Toronto FC qualifies). The young Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional (LNBP) is one of the strongest basketball leagues in the Americas, where the Soles de Mexicali are the current runners-up of the FIBA Americas League. The Mexican Pacific League is the most omportant baseball league, where the champion takes part in the Caribbean Series.

The Mexican football (soccer) league is strong as the TOP-4 mentioned in the article. I propose to include this leagues in the article. Cheers, JC 11:15, 23 March 2008 (PST)

Well, a more accurate term might be Northern America. It would still technically include Greenland and Bermuda - oh, and St. Pierre et Miquelon - but it would avoid confusion for those who like to remember that countries such as Mexico do indeed exist in North America... --Nerroth (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --necronudist (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MAP

The map should have a dot for 0 championships on Nashville. As Nashville has two major teams but neither have won a championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.109.39 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is a mess. Clever idea, but too many omissions/errors to be encyclopedic. Take a look at the caption, and all the caveats that have to be mentioned because of mistakes in the map. Also note that San Francisco/Oakland and Sacramento are very poorly placed on the map, looks like San Francisco moved to Monterey. Not to mention, San Francisco and Oakland are combined into one city, even though LA/Anaheim, NY/NJ are clearly separated into distinct dots. Plus there is no description to the key, just a bunch of numbers. Instead of trying to jam championships into the map, how about just showing how many franchises are in each city/market? I suggest that map be removed until an acceptable replacement can be created. -Macuxi (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bay Area dot is even more ridiculous considering it represents a third city. How quickly you forget San Jose. I guess that's better than San Diego being left off completely. -krudmonk 6:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My qualm with the map is that it indicates Philadelphia has won three championships (MLB, NHL, and NBA), but overlooks that the Philadelphia Eagles won the NFL Championship 3 times prior to the AFL merger and Superbowl.Mustang6172 (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NFL and the world

It says NFL is very US centered, but what about NFL Europe, and the WLAF that preceded it? Or the fact that the WLAF played in Canada, which is not mentioned in the relations of the NFL and CFL. 70.51.9.165 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

This article still speaks of Mexico as through it is not part of North America - which it is by almost all definitions. It either needs to be rewritten to recognise this, or the article renamed to Northern American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is much better titled now. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, was easier to renamed than been rewritten, I avoid the name of Northern America becuase the leagues doesnt include Greenland, Bermuda or SMP. JC 07:08, 18 July 2008 (PST)

Merge

I am proposing to merge Major North American professional sports teams into this article since they cover essentially the same topic. I also considered proposing to merge to List of U.S. and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. Comments? - Mitico (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Major North American professional sports teams article includes sport teams from Mexico and may include sport teams from Central America and the Caribbean too, both articles have significant differentces. JC 15:04, 6 January 2009 (PST)

Why would you want to include Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean with US & Canadian professional sports. For US & Canada to appear on the same page, I understand because leagues cross borders and there is some market sharing. The same doesn't exist for Mexico or elsewhere. This information belongs in or to a subarticle of Sport in Mexico, etc. Including Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean seems like an unnatural synthesis. As an aside is there any verifiable definition of "Major professional sports leagues"?

Oppose as this artcle is a careful discussion and analysis of which leagues are major, and therefore is an actual article, while the other is a list. Therefore the articles cover different purposes. Whether the Mexican Football League should even be in this list is questionable, because, as the anon poster noted, unlike the other leagues, which have cross-border footprint (NFL & CFL excepted), the MFL has nothing to do with the U.S. or Canada.oknazevad (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, which I'll mention over at the other page, is that the other page should be renamed to List of major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada or something of that sort. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Franchises, continued

PROPOSAL

hello, folks!

i'd just like to open up an old can of worms here, but with one new argument and some extra reasoning to go with it that i dont think has been proposed yet (i've read quite a bit on various talk pages on the matter, such as on the archived baseball section here).

just to give you a bit of background on myself: i'm not a fan of any major league team per se (i'm not even American!), but i am a big fan of all major league sports and of all sports in general and hopefully my neutrality will allow me to give a more balanced view on things.

i have seen much arguing on the matter of franchise histories and how continuity should be treated within Wikipedia articles: for example, whether the Minneapolis Lakers should deserve their own article or not, et cetera.

here's my proposition, as simply as i can put it:

• by all means keep ALL the history of any franchise under the heading of the current team (ie. the LA Lakers page should include everything which that franchise has ever done and won in the past) - as per the current wikipedia practice.

HOWEVER...

• have a BRIEF page for any franchise's previous cities of residence, giving only the most important information (as i and a couple of other users did here for the Brooklyn Dodgers earlier this year.)

That's it.

Now here's my reasoning:

My main thinking behind giving a team's old city the honour of its own page, however brief, is that every team has a specific personality and fanbase that can never truly be replicated once it moves elsewhere – yes, it may have wider support in its new home, it may even make more money and become more famous and successful, and there is no doubting that it is often the same company/corporation which owns it...however, the team is simply not "the same", if you feel me.

The relocated franchise's old-town supporters will always feel a certain loss that will never be replenished, most will never truly be able to support the re-located team because, leaving aside the greatest teams which can have nationwide support, most sports fans will support their local team. Also, the new-town supporters will never truly feel proud of the original team's achievements since they weren't that team's supporters at the time! And although the team still belongs to the same owner, we must never forget that extra dimension in sports - that to the fans a team is more than just about who makes the money and who owns the franchise - there is a difference between a McDonalds franchise and an NBA franchise, and that is the fans. I know you can argue it that Lakers fans are merely customers of the Lakers franchise, but that is missing the whole point of sports, that there is a certain passion, love, energy and devotion that a fan puts into his team that is rarely the same once a team has left their home to move to another city hundreds of miles away.

(it's a bit like moving Big Ben to New York - yes, it'll still be the same clocktower, but what is Big Ben without its London context, outside of its history? In the same way, the LA Dodgers may still be the same collection of people (players, management, owners...), and they are still "the Dodgers", but they are not the Brooklyn Dodgers.)

Thus the fans are in some ways more important than the owners, and therefore a re-located team, while remaining the same franchise can never really be the same "team". which is why i believe that every old team of a relocated franchise deserves the minimum of a stub article mentioning its achievements, brief history of its move to/from that location and perhaps even a bit of trivia relevant to that particular city-team that may not be pertinent in the main article on the franchise.

now i am NOT suggesting that there be separate sections (and certainly not separate articles) for Brooklyn Dodgers, Brooklyn Bridegrooms, Brooklyn Superbas, etc, because these are merely name changes for the same team. Neither should a simple relocation from one stadium to another within the same city be considered a separate team. There obviously HAS to be a clear line drawn somewhere, otherwise we could cut it down into infinity, which would make it wildly impractical. Which is why i believe city relocations are an appropriate cut-off point and deserve separate articles, albeit extremely short ones. (perhaps add to this that to merit its own article a team has to have existed, say, a minimum of three(?) seasons and/or won a minimum of one division title, or something similar - we can iron out the wrinkles here on the discussion page.)

i am not saying that all these stubs be created all of a sudden, but simply that if people ever DO want to create such a stub that they be allowed to do it, rather than the great Redirect Bulldozer coming along and erasing any sign of the existence of, say, the Minneapolis Lakers or the Brooklyn Dodgers or whoever.

so, whaddya say? for the sake of all those literally millions of fans of disenfranchised cities that were left with no team to support. for the sake of historical accuracy - we owe it to the History of Sport.

i'm eagerly awaiting opinions on the matter! thank you, BigSteve (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated in all the previous discussions, we are basically using the same organization as the teams are doing listing their official records and history. This is definitely cited and sourced. The criteria that we must split them just because "the fans are in some ways more important than the owners" is more of an arbitrary personal, opinionated, original research, undue weight type of soapbox reason. The only way they should be split is because of the length of the main article as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An objective criterion is being proposed, and Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the owners, the press, the fans, the scholars or anyone else in the way it organizes itself. Wikipedia should be written for the readers, and any accusations of soapboxing or original research (which are irrelevant to this kind of discussion) would fall just as easily on those who think that readers want to follow MLB's, the FA's, the NFL's and the owners' version of history, as it would on anyone else. As I understand the proposal, all the information about the Boston Braves and Milwaukee Braves would still be included in, for example, Atlanta Braves, while there would be short descriptive stubs for the former city that give things like Ebbets Field and the duration of a team's stay in the city, before redirecting the reader to the major article. There are some fine points: for example, I don't think the Boston Patriots or Anaheim Angels are removed enough to need more than their current simple, hard redirects. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that a fully agree with the numerous previous discussions, only that has been the general historical consensus, and that is one of the primary reasons why. I also should point out that this is not consistently applied. As you go through the NHL articles, for example, there are separate Quebec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche pages, and Winnipeg Jets and Phoenix Coyotes pages, and Kansas City Scouts and New Jersey Devils pages, etc. This is a result of the historical consensus of the members of the Ice Hockey WikiProject, which has gone against the general rule and has felt that there is enough content to warrant these separate articles. The other relevant WikiProjects have historically stated they want the current organization of merges and redirects. This basic issue has been debated on-and-off for over four years since a 2005 debate now archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos, and no consistent outcome has really changed since then due to historical inertia or discussions ending with non-consensus (much like the layout of the Main Page, but that is a different story). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, the various sports WikiProjects maintain their separate ways of doing things, and I'm unsure as to why conformity must be imposed across the projects.  RGTraynor  00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And from the last Montreal Expos debate it looks like the baseball project is also actually starting to consider splitting articles. However, they don't like the naming scheme the hockey project uses. But its clear that opinions on the issue are starting to move in some of the other sports. As I would note the NBA's most recent team also has split articles. I think the articles all being merged into one super article is just a case of articles starting as being one article cause less people were editing before, but as content grows all teams in all sports will eventually be split. I don't think there was every any consensus to make them single articles, but rather there is consensus to not split them now cause thats how they have always been. -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DJ, though I'm not sure whether to support or oppose this one. -- ISLANDERS27 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research header

I added the OR header because I believe many of the statements made here are opinion, not just unsourced. Given that the Refimprove tag has been here for nearly three years, the header is obviously insufficinet. I therefore added the OR header to highlight the additional problem. The alternative is to removed all uncited claims and opinions in the article, as stated by the Refimprove tag. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

CFL vs. MLS

The Canadian Football League comes in ahead of MLS in every quantifiable way I can see - it has a much higher average attendance, higher total attendance in every year besides this one (in which MLS got a significant boost from the addition of new teams and the World Cup), and much higher TV viewership. I don't know what is meant by it having a "smaller footprint", but the matter of it having fewer teams is insignificant. That it ranks behind the NFL in the arbitrary sphere of "gridiron football" doesn't really matter either - it's the top (only) league in Canadian football, and outpaces the MLS and all those other leagues in all the ways I've mentioned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Having fewer teams is a huge difference; it indicates demand for the product. Simply put, MLS has double the teams of the CFL, and is further expanding. Other than the oft-delayed return to Ottawa, the CFL has no realistic expansion options. The league is, essentially, maxed-out. Contrast this with MLS, which has surpassed the CFL in overall attendance; this is not likely a one-time event, either, as MLS is addi g more tes, which will inevitably push the MLS totals higher, unless Portland, Vancouver and Montreal draw zero fans.

More importantly, there's no doubt that. The players in the CFL are paid less on average than their NFL counterparts. That's what the "gridiron football" reference was to; despite what some apologists like to say, the CFL does draw upon the same general player pool as the NFL (and the UFL for that matter). To that end, they draw on a fairly high caliber of player, but they're not the top tier. So calling the CFL a near-major is questionable at best; it's more the historical status of the league, not its moderately different ruleset, that keeps it from being dismissed as an also-ran.

I do like the CFL greatly, but I am also realistic about it's position in the grand scheme of major North American sports. Major League Soccer has become a more important part of the overall mindset. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be in alphabetical order? Especially since the major leagues are that way. DC T•C 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of teams per league really isn't all that significant, unless you're arguing that demand for the NHL is equal to Major League Baseball because they have the same number of teams. And the idea that the CFL is tapped out is totally conjectural - they could be maxed out, or they could expand into the U.S. again; when they did it before two of the teams were actually pretty successful. It's not our place to speculate.

It's also not our place to speculate as to what qualifies as a "near-major" league and what doesn't. That's for the sources to determine, and what matters there is quantifiable information. Though it may be on a downward slope while the MLS is on an upward slope, the CFL is still the most watched league beyond the "big four" in North America by virtually any measure. As I said, the CFL has a much higher average attendance[3] than MLS.[4] It also has a much larger television viewership [5][6] (incidentally both are behind the Arena Football League in terms of TV viewership). It also typically has a higher total attendance. This year MLS has it beat slightly, but according to these folks, MLS is in a bit of a bubble - its increase this year is largely due to the expansion teams, which are typically well-attended in their first year, and they also got a noticeable bump from the World Cup.

We could dissolve the issue by placing the teams in alphabetical order, as DC suggests. That way we won't have to make a subjective call on which one is really more prominent.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical is probably best, as it is pretty neutral. Though which do we alpha the lacrosse leagues under, "major" or "national"? After all, the NLL is older, and I believe has higher attendance, but MLL is alphabetically first.

Also, while looking back at the edit history, I have to object to your removal, and characterization as "nonsense" of the sourced content about MLS average attendance per game surpassing the NHL and NBA. The source was legit and the numbers checked out. It may have been a one off occurrence, due to the same factors you mentioned above, but it deserves mentioning, as it shows the near-big-league nature of MLS, and that it is increasingly comparable to the others. That is an important factor, as the reason they constitute the "big four" is their common characteristics that elevate them above other sports leagues in the US and Canada. If MLS has caught up, even temporarily, then the "big four" aren't as unique anymore. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's alphabetize. I put the NLL before the MLL because it's older and appears to be significantly more prominent; I would consider removing the MLL altogether except that it gets coverage in Sports Business, so there are sources for it. Perhaps they should be in their own sections? I'm up in the air about that.

The source for the MLS having a higher attendance than the NHL and NBA was from a personal blog quoting numbers from a another, dead blog, and conflicted with the later and better numbers supplied by the reliable source Sports Business. Sports Business showed the MLS average attendance as than the NHL or NBA.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, separating them is probably best, as there's no link between them, other than one plays the indoor version of the sport, and the other plays the outdoor version. Frankly, neither of them are all that big, though, in part fostered by the debates as to which is the "real" sport. I would have no objection to their outright removal, but I'm sure someone would. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I alphabetized them as discussed, but we really need to decide what to do about the lacrosse articles. At least the National Lacrosse League seems to compare fairly well to some of the other leagues in that section in terms of attendance, but MLL is a far cry (for example, it appears to have lower [average] attendance than the local minor league baseball team in my area). It would be nice if we could find another source containing a list of the major sports leagues in the US and Canada.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the MLL shoudl be included as it has an ESPN2 TV Contract. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame I didn't see this before. The original numbers that Cuchullain used for MLS were only a partial count of the 2010 MLS season. There were still many matches left to be played when that article was written. I have updated this article with the correct numbers, a 16,675 average attendance and a 4,002,053 total attendance, which were retrieved from the official MLS site here. As you can see, MLS not only beat the CFL last season by a large amount in total attendance, they have done so for many years. Of course, CFL still wins in average attendance. So it seems the final decision to organize that section by alphabetical order was probably for the best. Though someone has moved MLS into the major leagues section. Should that be moved back? Emelerian (Emelerian) 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the update. I had thought that MLS was substantially behind CFL in total attendance, but I may have had old numbers in my head (as in, before the recent expansions and the World Cup boost). Average attendance is substantially lower than the CFL, but this year's figures aren't all that much lower than the NBA or the NHL (of course, it doesn't begin to approach any of the "Big Four" in total attendance). And I moved the MLS back to the "other notable leagues" section; it was moved by an anonymous user without comment a few days ago.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

just to say MLS is growing, near 18.000 Average attendance, and 475,356 in his first 27 games of the near 300 games in the regular season 2011http://www.mlssoccer.com/stats/2011/reg --Feroang (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This issue has been settled, but any new information is useful. I don't think anyone doubts that MLS is growing, and doing so fairly quickly (it's another matter if this holds out).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New York City and the NFL

There appears to be someone taking issue with the fact that New York City's NFL franchise is not in New York City or any portion of the metro area within New York State. Yes, I understand that that part of North Jersey is part of the New York metropolitan area and, for the purposes of the major sports, media market. However, it is a completely separate sports market and a completely separate state with its own identity and its own teams (NHL's Devils, NBA's Nets, USFL's Generals). The only teams who have identified as New York when playing in E. Rutherford are the Jets, Giants, UFL Sentinels (who only played one game in their traveling road show there) and a couple of minor football teams who identified as "New York/New Jersey." The issue of New Jersey housing the Jets and Giants has been contentious quite literally for decades. While I understand it is not the same as Los Angeles not having an NFL franchise (and no one else having one for at least 100 miles around them), it's still an important issue that the only professional outdoor football in New York City or State is that team in Orchard Park, 400 miles away. This is especially true when you factor in the fact that MLB, the NHL and the NBA all have teams within the city proper. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your addition based on two reasons. Firstly, it contained outright incorrect information; the Devils and Nets are no longer based in East Rutherford, while your addition stated as (incorrect) fact that they play there. It simply was wrong.

Secondly, it is not a separate sports market. If it were, then the Jets and Giants would have a majority of Jersey-based fans. However, as has been reported before, Giants season ticket holders actually predominantly come from the same territory in New York State and Connecticut served by Metro-North as well as Jersey; in fact, Jersey fans are a minority. And Jets fans are predominantly City-based, with a large contingent from Long Island. So to call these teams, which have fans come to games from all corners of the metro area purely Jersey teams doesn't fit the facts. oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's the same metro area and the same market. The Nets and the Devils are also part of the same metro area, if slightly farther from the city center now, regardless of how they brand themselves. The difference here is that, as their name suggests, they're marketed much more toward the bridge-and-tunnel crowd than the Jets or Giants. While it's an interesting factoid that East Rutherford was once the home of four major sports teams, it's not particularly noteworthy for this article, considering it'is strategically located in the country's largest metro area. If it didn't happen to cross state lines, this wouldn't be any more of an issue than the Dallas Cowboys playing in Arlington.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's the issue: it DOES cross a state line. And I'm not the only one who thinks it's an issue, either. New Jersey claims those teams as their own, as the sources indicate. And I apologize-- the Devils and Nets play in Newark now (they used to play in East Rutherford before they built the Prudential Center), but that's still in New Jersey. New York has had numerous opportunities to place a stadium within its bounds, but has refused (see: West Side Stadium), and every other major league (unless MLS is considered "major") has found a way to house not one, but two teams (at one point MLB even had three) within the metro area within the state of New York, and at least one within the city proper. The inability of the NFL to do so is certainly an issue. As for the fan statement, what does it matter? Many teams (including that one in Orchard Park, for instance) draw fans from outside their home metro area, but it doesn't mean those metro areas own the team. Of course the Jets and Giants have strong followings in the city: they don't have a team in the city to compete against. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the issue exists. I just don't think it's notable enough to require mention at this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the material again, for the reasons stated above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Urban sprawl has proven to be a problem for the NFL; in markets such as New York City (market #1) and Washington, DC (market #9), where the other major leagues have been able to place stadiums or arenas within the city proper, the NFL has instead resorted to placing their teams in stadiums in neighboring states (New Jersey and Maryland respectively). Especially in the New York/New Jersey case, this has been a source of humor and rivalry between the two jurisdictions, especially given that New Jersey claims an NHL and an NBA team as its own, separate of the teams in New York.

Is this any more acceptable? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's not a source for it, I don't believe we should include it. It seems like it's manufacturing an argument. Additionally, the NFL doesn't "place" its teams in a specific municipality, that's something that's worked out between the teams and the municipalities.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

number/quantity of teams

right now, there is not clear in this article how many teams play in each "other notable leagues", and that is a relevant information--Feroang (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is NASCAR missing?

Just curious, but NASCAR certainly qualifies for at very least a mention in this article, but is absent. --Falcadore (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto racing is mentioned in the "Leagues" section, but further mention is outside the scope of this article, which covers team sports. (And yes, I know they're called teams, but the drivers directly compete individually, even if part of the same team, while the rest of the crew is support staff.) oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then article title should probably clarify that selectivity rather than appear all including. --Falcadore (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It already does, specifically mentioning the term "major leagues" is typically limited to team sports. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, if you are relying on a 'typical' meaning not well known outside of its immediate industry. --Falcadore (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This sentence appears in this section:

In the United States and Canada, the term "major league" is usually limited to team sports, although individual sports such as golf, tennis, and auto racing are also very popular.

Now, if you think this should be moved to the lead to make the scope of the article clearer, I think that's a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did see the sentence you refer to, however my suggestion referred to the title of the article. Major professional team sports leagues... --Falcadore (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the article title, which is long enough as is; the longer we make it, the less likely people are going to search for it. I think if we make the scope of the article clear by moving the above sentence to the lead, it should make the article clearer. I'll do that now. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article in more detail, I do believe more strongly that NASCAR should have more prominent mention. Many of the sections of the article are directly comparable, and their content is not suitably exclusive of the sport. While it is easy to suggest that because racing drivers compete as individuals it should not be included, in truth the structure of NASCAR is closer to that of the major leagues than Golf or Tennis. The differences between NASCAR and the stickball sports are in the format of the sport, whereas this article is more about the business of the sport, of which NASCAR is very alike. Where NASCAR is different is not the subject of this article. --Falcadore (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. NASCAR is, like golf and tennis, a touring sport, where competitors travel from one event (tournament, race, etc.) to the next, competing at a different venue (course, racetrack, etc.) each week, with only one event at the top level in a given week. On the other hand, the major leagues (of team sports) have multiple games at the same time, with only two participating team's, each a franchise representing a specific geographic location. That's the difference, in my mind; franchises are a very different economic model than touring. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point you have raised, except as to its relevancy to this article, or as a response to the question I put to you. Let me elaborate:

The first part of the article after the league is purely historical. Age of league, numbers of teams, position in the market - all directly compareable to NASCAR, notinh aboutr the format of the event.

Traits of the League: Financial position and franchise stability, again directly compareable. NASCAR teams compete as franchises regardless of the driver in the car, each franchise it to some extent its own business. The financial position of the governing body likewise has little to do with the format of how the game is played.

Franchise locations, less comparable admittedly, however it is mostly described in a business sense. While the franchises may not be dotted around the country, the stadiums however are, so comparisons can be made there. Trends of sports growth in specific areas can likewise be tracked by circuit construction and venue attendance and profitability.

Ownership restrictions NASCAR likewise has limits on franchise ownership.

Weather challenges of course the great NASCAR vs Indycar debate and Indycar's self destruction in the 1990s while USAC fought with CART are directly comparable.

Player development Nationwide series, Craftsman Truck Series, Indycar drivers, interlopers from places as diverse as Formula One to V8 Supercar, again directly comparable.

Team layoalties this is where the manufacturers, Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Toyota and those names vanished from the past like Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Pontiac etc can be made much mention of.

Television exposure - again, directly compareable. Plus the race car's suitability as a billboard compared to a players uniform becomes important here, demonstrating NASCARs attractiveness to advertisers for mid game product placement.

High player salaries, drivers like Earnhardt, Gordon, Johnson can of course demand and recieve huge salaries, so I don't see how game format is troubling here.

Dominance of respective sport, comparisons to Formula One, Indycar, Speedway Outlaws and Drag Racing, again game format not at stake.

Relations btween leagues co-operative advertsing where teams share sponsors, and nothing about game format.

So you see, the format of how the game is played really has nothing to do with this particular article, except as an obstacle of exclusion. --Falcadore (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While I can see some of what you're saying here, I think some of it is a stretch. Regardless, I have to concur with Cuchullian's sentiment; we would need a source specifically describing NASCAR as similar.oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if we could find actual reliable sources discussing the "major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada" to go by.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate subject though. I can start that separate discuss for you if you like? --Falcadore (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not really separate. We should only be including material that is already associated with the article subject in reliable sources, not trying to figure it out ourselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is the Wall Street Journal article used as reference in the "Relations" section, which serves to show much of what this article discusses. There's certainly no doubt there's a genuine subject of interest here; the identity of the big 4 are a well-established concept. But more sources certainly can't hurt. oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The "big four" is definitely an established concept. What's less established is the concept of "other notable leagues" and which these are. The article as a whole is very poorly sourced.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is neither titled relating exclusively (M<ajor professional sports leagues is the terminology used, not major leagues) to the top four, nor is it written in a manner limited to the top four with mentions of Lacross leagues and Arena Football amongst others. Whether some of it is a stretch or not, most of it is not. As it is written, there is little basis for disqualification - cNASCAR deserves coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

NASCAR is not an interdependent team sport, nor is it a competition between 2 franchises with home stadia, and Johnson wins rather than Hendrick Motorsports. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Then the article should be called Major professional interdependent team sports leagues in the United States and Canada. --Falcadore (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)