When I was younger, there were certain newspapers I really admired - I just thought their reporting was a level above all the rest. Plus, because I couldn't understand the stock market at all, I thought the Wall Street Journal was somehow a smarter newspaper than all the rest. The creme de la creme.
It might be still in some respects. I'm no financial whiz. My opinion of this recent article is that it's creme de la crap.
Honestly - (and please don't paste links to all my typos - I know I have them, but I'm not writing for the WSJ, besides, it's the lack of facts I'm quibbling with) one sentence has left out basic info like where the Galaxy stand - "and sitting in place in the Western division of MLS". Er, that's what place again?
The whole premise of the article is that Beckham's injury is financially devastating to the Galaxy and MLS, but try to find a solid fact behind it. Here are a couple I could throw at you. To date this year, the best-selling sports jersey in the world is David Beckham's Galaxy jersey. MLS is averaging more folk in the stands than any year except the debut year.
The author has a lot of dire assumptions, but no mention of a single MLS club that has issued refunds for "Beckham games" There have been record attendances on those dates anyway.
Carlos Bocanegra went to England three years ago, and this writer acts like it just happened. Even Clint Dempsey went abroad before Beckham ever got to MLS, so it's not like tons of players have been deserting since he arrived. There's no mention of Juan Pablo Angel as a marquee player, either, and he's having a great year.
I'm not saying that MLS couldn't have made even more money if Beckham was playing, but there have been articles that make it clear that the Galaxy ownership have already made their money back. It's hard to muster any panic at the financial loss of some excess profit.
I couldn't find one monetary or statistical fact in the article to back up the author's premise. Isn't WSJ supposed to be all about info like that?