Talk:List of American and Canadian soccer champions

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: American & Canadian Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I get that premiership is used to define the regular season champions, but the term is infrequently used in the United States and Canada, and more heavily used in Australia. Quidster4040 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the term is unknown in US and Canadian usage. There's other incorrect assertions in this article as well. The current New York Cosmos organization has no real operational continuity with the NASL team, for example. The former GM ran summer camps using the trademark, but it wasn't anything that could be considered an actual continuation of the NASL team; comparing it to European youth academies is a false analogy.

I also have manor concerns with the sourcing. The first source, which is used to support the idea of "majors" is a blog post; it isn't a

reliable source. Generally, the article tries to examine the North American soccer scene in terms that are incorrect for the region. The article needs a rewrite. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As the person who wrote it, let me speak in defense of the article. The terms used were chosen because they are factually accurate (albeit colloquially uncommon in usage only), and for the purposes of practicality and maintaining continuity between types of titles achieved by franchises. It had nothing to do with whether nor not terminology was "American," or "European," it was just about being able to put the most information in the same area conveyed as neatly as possible. I'll note that the term 'premiership' isn't used in the US and Canada.

As for the sourcing, the 'blog post' is a column written on the official site of one of the competitions in question. Further, the following reference can be used regarding the trophies of MLS teams: [1] (though the league's insistence on including the Copa Interamericana -- a supercup held entirely on US soil that hasn't been heard from since 1998 -- and SuperLiga -- which ultimately became a second-tier friendly competition with prize money -- in that infographic is dubious at best as they don't represent any of the categories used to try and provide a linear narrative for the chaotic history of soccer in these two countries.)

Finally, the point about different franchises is entirely valid and correct. However, it's also a fact that the current

FC Tampa Bay, which I don't believe has the rights to the Tampa Bay Rowdies name but claim de facto lineage all the same. I propose the following solution: instead of the notations leaving it regrettably ambiguous as to whether or not the franchises are separate entities from their NASL-era counterparts, notations that explicitly point out that such current franchises are merely later start-ups with the ownership of the rights to the history of those NASL teams (or 'lineage claims' if you will). This way the purpose of the article isn't completely debased, and it accurately reflects the truth of the situation. I hope we can come to a solution amicably, and I think my idea and subsequent edit are reasonable. -- Fifty7 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If Atlanta is to be given credit for the 1969 premiership due to the NASL's awkward points system, then shouldn't the three other clubs who had the exact same thing happen, Seattle 1980, Vancouver 1983 and San Diego 1984, all be given recognition for having the best record in their respective years as well? If so, this would also affect their totals (as well as New York and Chicago's) in the previous section of that page titled Overall Totals. As it stands, either Atlanta should be removed and Kansas City given the 1969 premiership -or Seattle, Vancouver and San Diego should all gain premierships with New York (twice) and Chicago getting stripped of theirs. Or perhaps, both the "most points" and "best record" should be recognized in those 4 seasons' premierships. Personally I have no preference, except that it be consistent throughout. No matter what, something needs to be done to standardize these two tables.

whoops, forgot to sign it.--Creativewill (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, worked with Creativewill to correct it with 'most points' being key. -- Fifty7 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any thought of recognizing these leagues and their related data from 1967 as Div 1 champions, etc.? They were on here before, but I saw no discussion of why they were completely removed, rather than relocated. The United Soccer Association was sanctioned by both FIFA and the USSF. The teams were comprised of rebranded teams (10 from Europe, 2 from South America) because the owners couldn't put their own teams together on short notice. Their competition, National Professional Soccer League, was considered an outlaw league by FIFA, however to my knowledge no one ever received any FIFA penalty for participating, and many of the players went on to play in the NASL in subsequent seasons. The NPSL also had a television contract with CBS. Moreover the NASL always considered both leagues as part of their history, because they had merged to form the NASL. At the very least they should have a place somewhere in the minor championships section as they are an undeniable part of North American soccer history, but personally I think they should both be placed in the D1 section. Anyone else want to chime in with their thoughts? Creativewill (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While the United Soccer Association's unusual rental of entire rosters seems entirely wrong these days, it was a different era, and it was classified as the D1 league for he US at the time. Add in that both were considered predecessors by the NASL mean state that there's no reason to omit them I can think of. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be considered the 1967 USA regular season winner, Wash or L.A.? The two squads had identical point totals & records. Los Angeles had scored more goals, but Washington had a better goal-differential. Los Angeles hosted the Final simply because they had won a coin toss at season's end to determine the host. The coin-toss might indicate that perhaps the league may no accommodation beyond points total & season record to break a tie. Anyone, please chime in here. I don't mind adding the 1967 table, but I certainly would prefer to move forward with some sort of consensus. Thanks. -Creativewill (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that the two teams played only once during the regular season, and tied of course. Creativewill (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington. Tie breakers almost universally go to goal differential after head-to-head records. Notably, goals-for is after differential in almost all lists (which makes sense; a team can score a lot but have a porous defense, so goals for is not inherently a reading of ability to win, whereas differential is). oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted them and adjusted that NASL paragraph above them. Feel free to further adjust as you see fit. I listed USA first because their season started/ended before NPSL's did. -Creativewill (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of American and Canadian soccer champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110625092609/http://www.canadasoccer.com/natchamps/competitions.asp to http://www.canadasoccer.com/natchamps/competitions.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was seen as the first significant, viable, professional soccer league in the United States because it attracted many talented football/soccer players from Europe and rivaled the National Football League (NFL) and perhaps the National Hockey League (NHL) in popularity (thus being the second most popular professional sports league in the country behind Major League Baseball (MLB). The ASL collapsed due to the "Soccer Wars" with the USFA and the Great Depression. Should the ASL be recognized under the Major titles section?2601:5C4:4301:5420:6C6D:AC9A:C139:8996 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the NASL and MLS, the ASL was never sanctioned as a top division league in the United States. It was also a very regional league and did not have a national footprint like the other major soccer leagues. In those ways, the ASL is more similar to the leagues in the "Historical" section (NAFL, ASL-II) than those in "Major". BLAIXX 02:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a truly national footprint is not disqualifying. During the same time period, Major League Baseball had no teams south of Washington or west of St Louis, and no one would say it was anything other than major. The NFL and NHL likewise had no teams outside of a similar regional footprint at the time (and about half of the NHL teams of the time were in Canada). We can't use modern standards to judge the league of the time, we have to look at the period-appropriate standards. Likewise we can't concern ourselves with modern sanctioning rules that didn't exist yet. The plain fact is the original ASL was the top flight major league of soccer in the US during its time period, and its champion was the professional club champion of the US. I believe it should be included. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ @Blaixx:@Oknazevad:I found two sources^[1][2] that recognized the original ASL as Division I league (same footing w/ NASL and MLS). If it weren't for the National Origins Act of 1924, the USFA feud, and the Great Depression, as IP stated above, the ASL most likely would've evolved w/ the other major professional sports in the country into a national pastime. The only reason its clubs were concentrated in the Northeastern U.S. was due to travel constraints just like MLB and NFL clubs.--Bergeronpp (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see more non-blog (

WP:RS) sources which state that ASL was a major sports league in America (preferably a source that lists the ASL, NASL, and MLS as the 3 top leagues in US history). Without strong sources, I struggle to support moving its section to the very top of this article – it is probably not what most people are looking for. I would however support adding a paragraph above the ASL seasons table stating that the league is considered to have been a cut above its contemporary soccer leagues. BLAIXX 01:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Challenge Cup winners (which included clubs from the ASL) from the historical era, in the "Major" section? Do you consider the Challenge Cup winner the professional club champion of the U.S.?Bergeronpp (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The U.S. Open Cup (previously known as the Challenge Cup) has always been the top national cup competition sanctioned by the USSF. I'm open to the idea of moving the historical-era winners down to the historical section if that's what you're suggesting. In general, domestic cup winners are considered to be a club champion of their country. BLAIXX 23:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaixx and Bergeronpp: I noticed this discussion regarding the ASL, and I found three book sources: Marketing and Football (2012), Soccer For Dummies (2013), Major League Baseball Expansions and Relocations (this source lists "major professional" sports leagues in the U.S. among the five major team sports and listed the ASL (1921) and NASL as the only pro soccer leagues other than MLS). 2601:5C4:4301:5420:DCC4:6103:4161:129E (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed in the documentary series History of Football: The Beautiful Game (2002), the narration in the episode "Football Cultures" cites ONLY three American professional soccer leagues: ASL, NASL, and MLS (see: Dailymotion). 2601:5C4:4301:5420:DCC4:6103:4161:129E (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting sources but for the purposes of this list article, I still think the ASL fits better in the other section with it's contemporary leagues. Thank you for reviving this section, hopefully more editors will chime in and we can achieve WP:Consensus. BLAIXX 01:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know this isn't a formal RfC, but I am in agreement with Blaixx. The league had no sanctioning by the then USFA or by FIFA and in most references that exist on the subject, usually only the NASL and MLS are mentioned as the top-level professional leagues in the United States. I don't think it is appropriate to use counterfactual approaches of what could have been to justify its inclusion in "major titles", nor is the comparison to then very fledgling leagues of the NFL or NHL appropriate. I also agree with Blaixx that the sources provided claiming to be Division I titles are not reliable, but I don't think separating out different eras of the US Open Cup is necessary. I do believe that given the ASL's prominence at the time that it definitely deserves recognition under "minor titles". Jay eyem (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blaixx and Jay eyem. Without sanctioning by any recognized body (was USSF or any predecessor even around at the time?) it was just a locally popular league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem and Walter Görlitz: What about the National Professional Soccer League (1967)? Unlike the United Soccer Association (USA), it was NOT sanctioned by FIFA and regarded as an "outlaw" league. With your logic, the ASL and NPSL should both be removed from the "Major titles" section. 2601:5C4:4301:5420:41FB:E95B:7283:C495 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was discussed before in 2017, and I think I agree with most of what was said there. I think it also definitely deserves a place at least in the minor title section, with some added prose to explain the situation. The only reason I see to continue including it in the major title section is because it was an immediate predecessor to the NASL and is often included as a part of its history, but I don't feel as strongly about this. Jay eyem (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the non-reliable sources, are you referring to the ones provided by user Bergeronpp (which I agree aren't reliable), or the book sources I provided above? 2601:5C4:4301:5420:A189:DBB2:10A1:A35C (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the book sources provided, I think the Marketing and Football source was the only one that really approached

significant coverage

for me, but I'm not convinced one book source would be enough to put it into the "major" title category.

As an aside, can I recommend

creating an account? The post you referred to comes from a different IP address and it is really confusing to be treating them as coming from the same person. Might help your communication on Wikipedia in the future as well. Jay eyem (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this article is due for a major overhaul. There is currently no inclusion criteria for what belongs on this page which has resulted in more and more competitions being added. As a result, this article has become far too large to be read comfortably. For comparison, many other "List of X-country champions" such as List of English football champions only include a list of the D1 league champions. I don't think we need to go that far but I propose the following changes:

1. Remove Canadian competitions. I know that many leagues have had both American and Canadian teams in them but I think it's very clear which leagues are "American" and which are "Canadian". Information about Canadian competitions make up about 25% of this article and should be split off into a "
   List of Canadian soccer champions
   " article. This article would in turn be renamed to "List of American soccer champions".
2. Remove international competitions. Let's keep this article focused on domestic competitions. There is already an article American soccer clubs in international competitions which is the logical place for that content. Best finishes by year clearly does not fit with the title of this article.
3. Remove cup competitions. I think this article would be massively improved by focusing on league competitions only. The U.S. Open Cup section alone makes up 15% of the article and is basically identical to the summary table from List of U.S. Open Cup finals. Perhaps if we do that, the article should be renamed to "List of American soccer league champions".

If we implement all of these changes, the resulting article would look something like this (quick draft). It's still quite long but I think it would be a good first step. BLAIXX 17:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the first; so long as leagues with teams in both countries exist - and MLS is not getting rid of Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver any time soon – then they should be in a single article. Just because Toronto FC has won MLS Cup before doesn't make Toronto an American city.

I can completely agree with number 2. International competitions are not American or Canadian championships. It's overstretching to include them.

Third one I'm not sure about. Yeah, the lists for the US Open Cup and Canadian Championship are redundant to their respective articles, but the same can be said for the individual leagues' champions lists. Dropping the cups from here would raise the question as to why have even have this article in the first place since it's all redundant to other articles. The point is because it's to serve as a one-stop-shop for readers to find the info. Removing key info seems to defeat the purpose. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I honestly thought #1 would be a slam dunk so I didn't bother to elaborate on it further. I think it's clear that (for example) the CPL is part of the Canadian system and MLS is part of the American system. It's a pretty cut and dry place to split the article. Yes, MLS has some Canadian teams just like how the English leagues have Welsh teams and the Australian leagues have NZ team(s). In 2017, Toronto FC were the champions of the top American league – I don't see how that implies anything about what country the city is in.

Regarding your third point, I also question the purpose of this article because it feels like an indiscriminate dump of content. I feel like we're past the point of "one-stop-shop" being viable due to the massive scope. To address this, we can reduce the scope as I've proposed or maybe do something else like linking out to other articles rather than copy-pasting tables into this one. I'm open to other ideas too but I really think that we need to come up with something. Thanks, BLAIXX 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rough draft for a list of Canadian soccer champions if anyone would like to take a look and give feedback.
For Canada at least, I think it would make sense to keep the domestic cups. The purpose of this article in my opinion is to track and compare championship teams throughout an inconsistent history of constantly changing competitions, and for several periods in American and especially Canadian soccer, the national cups were the only and/or most important honour that a team could actually win in any given season. RedBlueGreen93 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a quick look at your draft and I think it's great! I'm ok with listing Canadian champions of American leagues and keeping the domestic cups on the new Canada article, per your reasoning. I'll take a closer look and might make some edits to your draft when I have time. BLAIXX 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone made a similar style article about Canadian champions. A List of soccer clubs in Canada by competitive honours won. Does this mean the sandbox is no longer necessary, or should we keep working on it? RedBlueGreen93 19:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not that similar, I think both can exist. I plan to work on the sandbox a little more and then move it to mainspace shortly! BLAIXX 03:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Also thanks for the edits on the sandbox, it's looking a lot better! RedBlueGreen93 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that the Whitecaps are a Phoenix club and I completely agree with counting all of their titles from all incarnations, however, the team won one NASL title and were a runner-up for the Regular Season title twice. They have never won MLS Cup or Supporters Shield.

This article does not list the titles won in any of the leagues that existed between the time of NASL and the MLS because there was no recognized D1 league as far as I know. If there was one, then that league and results should be listed here.

By what is listed here, their total should be 1 league title, ZERO regular season titles with 2 runner-up finishes and 3 domestic cup titles. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 20:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those titles are from the Canadian Soccer League (1987–1992). Canadian D1 seasons were listed in this article until about 5 days ago when I moved them to List of Canadian men's soccer champions to avoid duplication. BLAIXX 02:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]