Sporting KC
Are You a Bad Fan if You Want Sporting KC to Fail?
Sporting KC can sneak into the 2023 playoffs, but is it wrong to want more? A look at their playoff history and recent struggles.
The 2023 MLS season has been a weird one for Sporting Kansas City. They came out of the gate and failed to win for 10 straight games (0-7-3) and only scored three goals in that time. In the next 23 games, they’ve gone 11-7-5 for 1.65 points per game (ppg) adding 42 goals in that time.
If they had sustained that success over a full season (which they obviously didn’t, but humor me), they would be the fifth best team in all of Major League Soccer and second in the Western Conference. They would only be behind the Supporters Shield winning FC Cincinnati, Orlando City, St. Louis City SC and the Philadelphia Union, in that order.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts…
Instead, Sporting KC find themselves fighting for their playoff lives. They currently sit in 10th place in the Western Conference, one point behind FC Dallas and two points behind the Portland Timbers and San Jose Earthquakes. If Sporting KC win on Decision Day against Minnesota United (equal with SKC on points with everything to play for) and one of the three teams above them fail to win, then they’ll sneak in.
This is what sparked a recent debate in the KC Soccer Journal Slack and again on the Shades of Blue Soccer Show on Monday (I encourage you to listen to the show, this was one line in a much broader discussion around this topic). It even led to a line being said that you aren’t a good fan if you want Sporting KC to fail to make the playoffs. Even saying you aren’t a fan at all.
The counter argument to that, is it wrong for you to want better than this for your team?
“Everyone Makes the Playoffs”
I uttered this line many times at the beginning of the season when Sporting KC were struggling. It’s not exactly right, but a lot of teams get in.
Slipping into the play-in game (I’d argue the playoffs start after 8th and 9th play their game), isn’t really a high bar of success. Just over 62 percent of all teams in MLS make the playoffs with the format change brought about this year. If we want to say the play-in game doesn’t count (again, you should have to win it), then it’s down to just over 55 percent getting in.
Let’s compare that to the other major sports in America.
In the National Basketball League, 53.3 percent get into the playoffs. The National Hockey League is a little more exclusive, letting in exactly half (50 percent) of their teams. It’s better still in the National Football League, where only 43.75 percent get in. They are the most exclusive in Major League Baseball, where only 40 percent of the teams get in, and that’s a recent increase.
Maybe it’s an American Soccer problem. The USL Championship, the second tier, let in 66.6 percent of their 24 teams into the playoffs this season. That’s just silly.
Why ‘Playoffs’ Matter
If Sporting KC sneak into the playoffs on Decision Day, that’ll mean they’ve made the playoffs 11 of the last 13 seasons. If they miss, obviously that’s 10 of 13 they’ll have made it. And that’s exactly the way they’ll phrase it. In a story that ran on our prior site before the conversion to KCSJ, my colleague Robert Rusert got a quote from Jake Reid ahead of the season that upset a lot of people.
“I love that our fans have a high standard high because we have as high, if not higher,” said Reid. “We don’t start a year without talking about winning trophies and making the playoffs. You can say two of the last four we’ve missed; I would say two of the last 12 we’ve missed. It’s perspective.”
I personally could see them using just making the play-in game as ‘two of the last 13 we’ve missed…’ Or if they don’t make it, it’ll be how they made it 10 of 13 seasons. It was a quote that set off part of the fan base and I can hardly blame them. It is much more reasonable to phrase it as having missed two of four right now (or two of five if they fail against Minnesota).
Sports is a ‘what have you done for me lately’ kind of business. Fair or not, that’s how the business works. Look at the New England Patriots. Bill Belichick is suffering a terrible season for the New England Patriots. Sure, he won seven Super Bowls, but there are people calling for his job. Peter Vermes has a really good track record too (not one of Belichick’s caliber, though). At my real job (I’m sure it’s stunning you to discover this doesn’t pay the bills), when you apply for a position, they really focus on your last year or two. If we are focusing on two years of Sporting KC, it’s not good enough.
Beyond the team remembering only missing two of the last 13, most people don’t remember what seed the team was. In 2014 and 2015, they were the last seed to make the playoffs. 2016 and 2017 weren’t much better as they were the next to last seed. In all four of those seasons, they were bounced out of the first round of the playoffs (albeit with some controversy in 2015 and 2016).
Wanting Better for Sporting KC
Back to being “bad fans.” Every day, I find myself closer and closer to thinking things are never really going to change under Peter Vermes. And I’m not disillusioned enough to think the result going one way or another on Decision Day is going to change things.
Peter Vermes signed a five-year contract extension before the 2023 season, and it hasn’t even kicked in yet! To fire him, would mean (presumably) paying him for five seasons for literally nothing (a question for another day is if PV would have gotten that extension after this season). I think he’s done enough in his (more distant) past to have earned a chance to start as coach for one more season. No matter the results on Decision Day.
But I, and others, want more.
His record down since May really good, but he’s the reason the team was bad previously too. Everyone has rightly pointed to the injuries hampering 2022 and the start of 2023. It’s obvious that when Sporting KC got back Alan Pulido, Gadi Kinda and others, the team is better. But it’s not like those are the only injuries. Graham Zusi and Tim Melia have missed significant time in recent seasons. Johnny Russell has dealt with (and played through) many injuries. And the injury report constantly has names coming on and off of it (has Nemanja Radoja ever been fully fit this year?).
Why are so many players on this team always hurt? If I had that solution, I imagine Sporting KC would hire me yesterday. Obviously, there is a bit of bad luck (Pulido getting hurt on Mexican National Team duty).
However, there are other factors that can’t be ignored. Sporting KC are the second oldest team in all of MLS (father time is undefeated). While rotation has happened, it’s often forced rotation because of injuries. It’s not uncommon to see SKC throw out nearly identical lineups three times in a week (and with awful results). Outside of rotation, Vermes is often hesitant to use his subs (the way they almost collapsed playing up a man against Real Salt Lake could be a factor into why). But if he doesn’t trust those players, he should do better at signing guys. He is the Sporting Director and Coach after all.
We Can’t Ignore the Youth
Back to the age of the team. My colleague Mike Kuhn sent a Tweet earlier this season that has stuck with me.
I mean PV's "ideal" 11 if everyone is healthy would probably contain at least 6 players over 30 and no one younger than 27.
Melia 37
Zusi 36
Rosero 29
Fontas 33
Leibold 29
Radoja 30
2 of Walter 28, Thommy 28, Kinda 29, Gutierrez 32
Russell 33
Pulido 32
Salloi 27— Mike (@downthebyline) August 11, 2023
Since that time, Graham Zusi turned 37, Dany Rosero turned 30, Erik Thommy turned 29 and Felipe Gutierrez turned 33.
On the other end of the spectrum, what youth has this team signed or developed in recent seasons? Let’s look at who is still on the roster, and the year they were signed (current age in parenthesis).
- 2023 – Flores (21), Afrifa (22), Rindov (22)
- 2022 – Ndenbe (23), Voloder (22), Tzionis (22), Agada (24)
- 2021 – Pierre (20), Davis (21)
- 2020 – Cisneros (19), Pulskamp (22)
- 2019 – Duke (22), Hernandez (25)
Of those players, only Jake Davis is a regular starter and it’s possible Zusi would be taking that job if he was healthy. Add to that, Davis was the fourth choice and PV stumbled into that success. Logan Ndenbe has started a lot recently, but Tim Leibold’s health is no doubt playing a role. Willy Agada is definitely the backup striker. And John Pulskamp probably cemented himself as the second choice GK over this season. Everyone else either gets spot sub appearances (Tzionis), rides the bench or spent much of the season with SKC II.
Gianluca Busio is the only SKC youth success story and I’m not convinced Sporting KC developed him as much as found him.
I think wanting a change from the lack of youth development, overreliance on an aging core, wanting more subs and rotation doesn’t make you a bad fan. And if you think losing on Decision Day gets you one step closer, that’s your right. But if Sporting KC manage to sneak into the playoffs, it will just add to the argument of why Vermes is the guy that can do the job.
All of that said, I hope he is. I want this team to win. Every time I watch, I hold on to hope. I was given a lot of grief for saying they had plenty of time to turn it around (but they mostly have). I’m still not convinced they are good enough to make a deep playoff run, but I sure hope they do. I hope they win the whole damn thing.
Sporting KC sign 24-year-old Angolan winger Capita Capemba
Match Preview: Utah Royals at KC Current
KC Current Season Preview
KC Current Trade for Penelope Hocking from Bay FC
Preview: Sporting KC Takes on the LA Galaxy
6 Takeaways from Sporting KC vs San Diego FC
Sporting Kansas City falls 1-0 to San Diego in a chippy affair.
Sporting Kansas City vs San Diego FC Match Thread
Sporting KC Lose, but Keep Showing Promise in 2026
In any league that has a “worst drafts first” model, fans have to accommodate the double-think that comes with rooting for their team on the field/ice while recognizing that failure leads to rewards. Tanking has become a well-understood strategy in both baseball and hockey for that exact reason. Many fans of my primary NHL team, a recent bottom-feeder, are openly rooting for another bottom-five finish so they can draft another potential star, knowing that may be the best path to future success. Fans of my secondary NHL team, a mushy-middle team, recognize that they’re in an uncomfortable place (too good to draft well, too bad to be a threat if they sneak into the playoffs).
So I struggle to grasp the mentality that you have to be 100% positive about your team or you’re not a fan. Even setting aside tanking, it’s obvious at times that near-term failure can set up long-term success.
Sensible people ought to be able to juggle contradictory but complimentary ideas. You can root for the laundry and the players on gameday while still recognizing that failure on a season scale may well be beneficial.
unless you only root for SKCII, getting a higher draft pick doesn’t really help you much in the academy era of MLS.
I never said drafting was important for MLS. I used that as a demonstration of how sports fans can simultaneously cheer for team success and recognize the value of team failure.
I would say this is even more true in the NFL or NBA, where a single star (any NBA position, but QB in particular in the NFL) can make/break a team.
By literal definition… rooting against a team makes you not a fan of that team. If just for a single game so they don’t make the playoffs, you are not a fan of that team during the game.
And it was surrounded by everyone acknowledging their own frustration, thoughts of not wanting them in the playoffs or if they deserve it, and wanting to see changes.
That’s an awfully pedantic take that completely ignores the broader context. Fandom is not defined solely by what happens on the field/ice on a given day; it’s rooted in a deeper attachment to a long-term entity. Thus a thoughtful person can recognize that what happens on a given gameday doesn’t occur in isolation, but has longer-term ramifications.
Well to be honest this entire conversation about what we said on the show is what completely ignores the broader context.
Of course! If you listen to the show, we make all of this very clear. Repeatedly. And we’ve all expressed this exact sentiment many times over this season. It’s really quite unfair to suggest I, or anyone on the show, isn’t “a thoughtful person” or can’t comprehend this obvious fact.
This article took one sentence with no context. Yes, over the course of a 45min show (plus all the other shows we’ve talked about this), we were talking about what a ‘fan’ is and I said “it would literally make you NOT a fan.”
It’s a very small, meaningless point about the literal definition of a fan that was made amidst a much larger conversation. I’m not making some large declaration here. It was a comment on the technical term. It was just a thing I said. Please, disagree with that all you want.
But this article and the question of a counter argument, imply that we don’t want Sporting KC to be better because we will root for them to win the last game. I commented here to clarify and explain I share the same feelings expressed in much of the article.
Where I come down is you can be a fan either way. KCOutsider makes the point about wanting a team to tank to get better picks (it doesn’t apply in MLS really, but the larger point stands).
That “literal definition” you start your first comment off with says you literally can’t be a fan if you don’t want them to win.
I think if you are watching the games, following a website like this, or our podcasts, you are inherently a fan (I suppose there is hate watching/listening, which I don’t really understand).
But it’s also fair to said, whether they get in or don’t, we ALL want better for this team. Some may just think SKC missing the playoffs expedites that. Right or wrong. It’s just an opinion.
I googled the definition of a fan. After a bunch of stuff about cooling devices, this game up:
“a person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing. ‘football fans'”
It doesn’t say you always have to want them to win.
Still going on about this one meaningless sentence… analyzing it every possible way (except for the one and only literal way I meant it)… but somehow I am the one who got called pedantic.
I said rooting against a team makes you not a fan. Is that really such an absurd thing to say? Do you still not understand the very basic, very literal, very meaningless point I was making? Have you heard me one single time push back against the idea of wanting better for your team? Or that I don’t understand the logic of not wanting to make the playoffs?
I’ve been trying to think through what this argument is actually about, and why I care. And I think it’s because the “rooting against a team makes you not a fan” line feels like something of a strawman. Is there a meaningful population of SKC fans openly rooting against the team on gameday? Are there people the stadium cheering opposition goals? Where is this idea coming from?
And so because I don’t really think that exists in reality, it feels like this hypothetical “anti-SKC” fan is being conflated with fans who are disenchanted or recognize a different path, and that’s what bugs me.
You’re right that I didn’t listen to the original podcast because (a) podcasts just don’t work for me and (b) I’ve never enjoyed this one when I have tried it. So I’m working from Chad’s article alone, with whatever bias comes along with that. That’s why I commented here.
I thought of a more soccer-specific “value to failing” example: a tournament group stage where other match outcomes mean you may well be better off finishing second than first to avoid harder bracket matchups. This happens every World Cup, and every fan base involved recognizes that, in concept, it’d be better to draw or lose that final group stage game. But is there a meaningful group of any fans anywhere that are openly rooting against their team in that situation? Or do they just recognize the potential for a non-win outcome to not be inherently bad while still cheering for a win in the moment? This goes back to my other comment just now; the idea that there are fans actively rooting against their own team feels like a straw man, as opposed to fans recognizing and debating the conceptual value of different outcomes.
Bad example. No way, in the craziest word bending argument could you compare gaming a tournament bracket is the same as missing the MLS playoffs. If you are gaming the bracket, it is because you are getting through to the knock out round, (playoffs). You are just trying to get an easier opponent. You are cheering for the success of your team. There is no success for SKC if they miss the playoffs. If you actually follow the team, then you know at a max 3 players will be the turnover win or lose this year. PV will remain. I believe you can be a fan of players, a coach, or the team.
I’m a fan of the team, it is a zero sum game to be a fan. You obviously watch a lot of sports, I don’t. I watch the Chiefs, and SKC play. I watch champions league and the WC. That is it, no baseball, hockey, basketball, cricket, auto racing, nothing. I just don’t have the time. I do know you can’t be a fan of two teams in a league, that makes you a fan of the sport, not a particular team. A team located away from my area brings zero revenue to my city. I have these antiquated reasons for being loyal to my home teams that I will probably hold until I’m gone. Try being a fan of your wife and a fan of the big chested lady next door.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
To your first paragraph, it seems to me you’re missing the point, which is simply that gameday events aren’t the only aspect of success or fandom. If you’re trying to game a bracket, that still implies that you’re willing to root for (or at least accept) a beneficial loss. If you think that the Royals reaching 100 losses, or SKC missing the playoffs, will force necessary management changes, then hoping in some way for that outcome means you’re “cheering for the success of your team” in the long run, independent of gameday outcomes. It’s fair to argue that SKC missing the playoffs WON’T change anything, but that doesn’t affect the nature of fandom for someone who hopes it would be true.
To your second paragraph, it’s quite possible to be a fan of two teams in a league, especially if they’re in opposite conferences and rarely interact, and/or if they come with different personal histories. Some of us have moved at some point in life and carry long-term loyalties to a past home team while still adopting our local teams. On the occasional times when those teams meet, we manage to handle the short-term cognitive dissonance. This isn’t a novel or unusual concept in sports, any more than it is for anyone who has strong ethnic or cultural ties to multiple countries (as manifests all the time when following the World Cup, for example).
The last sentence is just offensive and irrelevant.
Its hard to win year in and year out in any league, but i really do think consistency is important for sustained success. How many teams are riding coaching carousels every couple of years trying to get it right? We as sports fans often have grass is greener syndrome and think a new coach would come in, cut the vets, start the youth, rotate the roster, and fly to the top of the table- which just isnt reality. The bulk of the fan base loves to blame Vermes when its not going well but also not give him props when it turned around.
Vermes showed that when he has tools he can be successful, id argue the biggest thing we learned this year is we have an overreliance on Gadi Kinda and Pulido for offensive production, and there is a dying need for more offensive firepower both in the starting line up and off the bench. Russell has been inconsistent for a couple of years and isnt a #1 or #2 option in the offensive third, and Salloi excels when he is surrounded with creative players to set him up. Thommy thrives when he plays within himself and isnt the focal point of the offense. We need Gadi healthy all year to play 90 minutes, or an upgrade. If Tzionnis cant make the leap, we need a starter quality offensive minded winger and let Russell be a spot started and spark off the bench.
“is it wrong for you to want better than this for your team?”
It is wrong to lie to yourself. If you don’t want SKC in the playoffs than wanting better for the team is not what you want.
Years ago I talked to someone who was happy that GW won the presidency. He was a manager at a Subway and suggested that GW would tank the economy and thus would allow him to find better employees. I feel like that’s the argument (some of) you are making. If we just suck enough then everything will be better. It wont. It will just suck. There’s no indication at all that anything will change if we finish 9th or 11th in the league. So why root for us to fail? There’s no ‘This will make things better in the long run’ argument here. Peter isn’t going to listen to you and make the changes that you know need to be made. He’s gonna do what he and his bosses (who do this professionally) want to do whether we beat MN or not. So why are (some of) you rooting for the team to fail?
I don’t think even us losing changes anything, we’re more than likely going to experience the same pain of last year, and this year, next year barring some significant changes which we all know won’t happen. I won’t ever root against this team, but I won’t be renewing our season tickets anytime soon.
I just think there’s a lot of nuance missing from all of these discussions. There’s no reward for the team losing on Decision Day. Vermes isn’t going anywhere after this season no matter what happens on the 21st and beyond. Losing that game likely won’t alter their plans for the offseason and next season either. And on that subject I just think it’s important to remember that every offseason, other than this past one, where they finished in those lower seeds of the playoffs or outside of the playoffs, they have made massive adjustments. Double digit numbers of players turned over, and changes in the roster construction methodology literally every single time. The last time, between 19 and 20, that methodology included a huge transfer fee for the highest paid and top 2 most skilled KC Soccer Player of all time.
As for the age, it’s not just the old dudes getting hurt and not all the old dudes are getting hurt so tossing that out there as a factor in the injury situation is just a way to blame bad luck on one guy. And not all of the guys getting hurt had extensive injury histories before coming here and not all of the got hurt in training or from things that are typically seen as overuse injuries. So again, there’s not a “Vermes did bad” set of circumstances common to all or even most of the injuries. It definitely feels like there’s SOMETHING going on for all these dudes to keep getting hurt, and Vermes is the top of the food chain so he’s responsible insofar as he’s “responsible” for everything but there are layers between him and the boots on the ground, so to speak, in the medical staff.
Last bit: the youth. SKC absolutely developed Busio. That’s just a bad take, sorry. He came in as a child who had phenomenal skills for his age and, apparently, maturity beyond his years but in the one full season across 2 that he played for us he went from a 10 who never took chances and didn’t play defense to a ball-winning and pace-setting 6. He oozed Vermes-ball. Yes, he came in with a higher baseline than most kids but he developed a ton while he was here. The same can be said about Davis. I don’t think anyone planned on him breaking out this year at right back but he lead the team in minutes in the pre-season playing all 3 midfield slots and right back so they were obviously thinking they saw something there. Now it’s also true that they’ve failed with pretty much all the rest of their prospects but again, I don’t think that’s on Vermes. None of those dudes went on to be anything of note anywhere at any level above or below MLS and several of them left when they were quite young. I think it’s much more likely that we just don’t have very fertile territory.
On the youth, it could be the lack of a fertile territory. I definitely won’t argue against that. The cities with the best youth setups tend to be larger than KC (but that’s true of almost every city in MLS being larger than KC).
I don’t follow English football much, but they are all picking from the same tiny country and some of them do a fantastic job at developing talent, despite the small pool they are pulling from.
The Busio example again feels like a bit of luck. I think he probably ends up being super talented, no matter what academy he goes to. Playing at the 6 I believe was forced because of Ilie needing to play CB and no one being able to take that spot. Sure, PV chose to put him there. So, he gets some credit. But is it the same amount he gets for putting Davis at RB as his 4th choice?
Vermes obviously knows infinitely more about soccer than I do. However, I still think someone else could get more out of our youth setup. I’m hopeful Declan Jogi is that guy. It takes time to see those results and SKC haven’t signed a ton of Homegrowns in recent years. Going back to my list, but removing non-HGs:
*LA Galaxy HG
Two seasons without any signings.
This is perhaps an obvious point, but England (and frankly much of the world) is developing their top young athletes primarily for football/soccer and maybe one other sport (such as cricket or ice hockey), whereas here we’re diverting our top young athletes among at least 5 major sports. If American football and baseball didn’t exist, imagine how many more of those stars would be developing into premium US soccer players. Soccer will always be at a disadvantage here as long as other sports are preferred pathways for developing athletes.
Very fair point. People get mad at, “what if our best athletes played soccer.” But it’s true. Most countries are primarily playing soccer. That’s obviously not the case here. There are a lot of youth soccer players, but there is a lot of talent that are playing many other sports.