I think places like Raleigh, Nashville, Jacksonville are all great second tier sites for soccer in this country. Eventually, there will be Pro/Rel with MLS - probably between MLS and the USL. But that is decades away. You need the original owners and the folks that have spent big on expansion fees to first start making money - so you're talking 20 years.
Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
The way I'm conceptualizing it, that's like saying we don't need group stages in the World Cup, because the qualifiers act as a big group stage.
Conferences are regional, the playoffs are national. We will only play Seattle, Galaxy, LAFC, et. al. in 83% of seasons if we stick to a 34 game schedule (with four groups of eight, and two games against each conference opponent). When the national stage hits, we should maximize the number of cross-conference matchups. Instead of each playoff team playing one other team twice (even worse, a team from their own conference), they should play three other teams once (all from different conferences). This would set up an 8 team knockout stage between the teams that truly earned it on the field.
As I explained above, if you go to single-leg knockout games, there will only be six matchdays in a group stage + knockout format. That's the exact same number as we have today with 12 playoff qualifiers.
Even if they kept the two-leg setup, a three-game group stage only adds one matchday over the equivalent straight knockout tournament.
Are you being serious, or just trolling?
C'mon man!
Being serious. The way they have set up their USL affiliation, it's obvious they are modeling themselves off of the FA. For now, they have senior squads, academy sides and USL affiliates. Seamless that it would transition into Senior, Academy and Reserve sides. Two tiers of 20.
Just because it can happen doesn't mean it should or will. From the perspective of the owners and investors of MLS, there is no reason to institute pro/reg.
Pro/reg proponent's best and only chance is some type of a merger with the NASL. If that league can find away to generate enough revenue to pique MLS's interest, they might listen to some creative solutions that work in both leagues' financial favor. For example, if MLS estimates it can double the size of it's TV deal by adding 25% new teams from an NASL takeover, that would increase their TV revenue per team by 50% and make some financial sense.
This scenario doesn't appear very likely however, and is a minimum of 10 years out from being even remotely possible. NASL has to kick their shit into high gear to catch up - not that they aren't trying though.
I disagree entirely. It's obvious that they are modeling themselves of an entity with a similar name, MLB. Pro/rel exists in europe only because it made sense 100 years ago and would be complicated to change at this point. No scenario exists in which an MLS franchise owner would be willing to risk devaluing his asset so dramatically to ever allow pro/rel to happen. The only potential scenario is something crazy like corrupt FIFA creating some mandate, even then MLS would probably not follow that.
The MLS/USL relationship is clearly trying to mimmick the MLB/AAA/AA/A system, which imo is a far superior system for player development and a much better business model (for the 20+ MLS clubs.)
thats what the pro/rel people on twitter on waiting on....once the dust settles of all the arrests that they are 100% convinced that a mandate will be made to "force" federations to implement PRO/REL....i feel maybe the back up plan would be MLS saying ok well do it but it will be MLS/USL/PDL. Leaving NASL out of it...lol if it goes that way. Honestly NASL has way to many question marks for me...teams relocating....fleeing and new teams with questionable owners ( has anything been announced for Puerto rico? Rayo OKC is allegedly having question marks, connecticut had some corruption issues etc). Them partnering with NPSL is their only bet to me make it pro rel or make a division between both to let amateur teams have time to adj
ust to being pro teams.
as for the MLB analogy you are correct....it seems to be MLS/USL/PDL....i mean today energy fc from USL announced they will have their own "B" team in PDL....i mean doesnt get more obvious than that
It's cute how we all know each other's pet peeves and hobbyhorses.
Imo there are some undiscussed unfounded assumptions and answerable and soon to be answerable questions here.
Unfounded assumptions:
- Pro/rel dramatically devalues the asset of teams who are relegated.
- Pro/rel does not substantially increase the value of promoted teams and the top flight league enough to offset any possible losses to relegated teams.
- There are no ways to make pro/rel financially beneficial or appealing to owners who would be voting on this system and fear that their clubs would likely be in the relegation zone.
Answerable question: What is the proportional value in other top leagues of teams just above relegation (figure spots 13-17) vs. teams just below promotion in the second division (figure spots 4-8)?
Answerable question in a few years: What is the proportional value of MLS teams ranked 13-17 vs. MLS teams ranked 24-28?
When you have both of those questions answered, you'll have a lot more basis for this argument. I'm not convinced that relegation with a promotion to fight for will be so much worse for valuation than being ranked 26 in a league of 32 with no chance of playoffs and nothing really to fight for.
I know - TV rights are the big money maker and that's a huge jump from 1st to 2nd division. If that's the argument, go back and reread my third unfounded assumption.
But I don't know the answers. Nor does it seem anyone else here does. Or at least, they haven't shared them that I've noticed.
I'm just happy someone knows how to spell my name.
This needs its own thread but still basically the newer owners basically throw 100 million down the toilet of their team is relegated. If we nycfc gets relegated then it's more cash. The owners invested in MLS because they knew that there was no relegation, and changing rules is not something they will vote for.
I'm confused about your TV point.TV is something needed just look at it around the world. There are no "parachute" payments for relegated teams like they do in England. You get more revenue for TV if you are in top division where if you get relegated you lose that could be a few million to keep you afloat.
Look at NASL they have a channel for cosmos but outside of that they have no national tv coverage no one knows half the things going on there unless you are a fan of the league/team. Pretty sure many would like to have extra TV money.
It's probably not hard to guess that I'm a huge proponent of league pyramids, but even I can't go with your reasoning here.
Your first "unfounded" assumption is, quite frankly, highly founded, although you're missing the point that it's not just a team's net value which decreases on relegation but their revenue. In England, the Premier League has to make payments lasting a full four years to relegated teams simply to stop them going out of business instantly by virtue of losing access to the TV money they get as a PL club. Other countries don't have to go that far, but still the teams which go down suffer badly, and if they can't get back up in about 2-3 seasons then they often find themselves stuck in the lower divisions and struggling to get back up again. At the same time, since wages are generally over 50% of a club's expenditure, those same clubs don't find their costs going down at a proportionate rate since it's hard if not suicidal to try to jettison the majority of your squad in order to balance the books, not to mention it's a guarantee of not getting promoted again. Thus, the end result of relegation is financial difficulty.
Your second assumption is not so much founded as confusing to me. If your comment is that it's silly that club owners should complain at a system that could potentially wreck the value of their investment because there's several dozen clubs waiting in the wings which could all become a lot more valuable by it then my answer is "why should that make a difference? The only ones who are voting on this proposition are those with a lot to lose. Those with stuff to gain do not get a say in the matter". If your comment instead is why should they worry about the loss of value when they will get it all back upon promotion, my answer is "that's not how finance works. Sure, the club's net worth would eventually return to where it was before, but it would lose the net effect of the gradual increase in value they would have benefited from by not being relegated. Not only that, but as said in the previous paragraph - the real issue here is that they are losing out on revenue, not on net worth. Realistically, owning a top flight club is like having a bank account with 25% APR interest, and getting relegated is like someone forcing you to withdraw half of your savings from the account for several years. Sure, you get the money back that you withdrew, but what about the 25% compound interest? That would've almost doubled your savings...
As for your third assumption, you're missing several more things. Firstly, yes there are ways of compensating relegated teams financially - but those clubs which have to sacrifice their money to subsidise the relegated sides will not be happy. Secondly, though, it's not just about the money. It's about a lot of other things they will lose. The TV exposure - the league could even force the TV companies to air just as many D2 games as D1 I suppose (though the TV companies would object and lower their asking prices as a result) but they won't get the viewers for those games so what's the point. The attendances at D2 matches will tail off noticably - even in the UK where teams have built substantial loyal support going back generations, matchday attendance generally plummets about 25% after relegation. You get fewer people buying the merchandise. You get less prestigious matches. You simply don't have the trophies available to win. These are all things that work in Europe because that's how it has always been. These are not things which are easily implementable in a country where club owners are bred to have a silver spoon in their mouths.
As for your answerable questions, I'm going to say that the average value of a relegation-battling club in Europe compared to a Europa League team is somewhere around 1:3. As for the MLS teams, you're losing at a ratio somewhere more around 4:5. That's a huge difference.
I will always love promotion and relegation and I will always be suspicious and mistrusting of closed-shop leagues. That said, I simply cannot see a way that a majority of MLS franchise owners would willingly vote to implement it.
Last edited:
Thanks. Very helpful. But I'm not sure convincing (to me anyway).
My premise lies in this singular uncertainty - Can finances be arranged to limit the financial loss of relegation enough to make the benefits to a majority of owners outweigh the risks?
Your information (and I respect highly your much deeper knowledge than mine) still leaves me feeling that question has not been answered. It sounds very clear that no such system exists in Europe. But that doesn't mean alternative systems could not be used in MLS.
Also, I think I failed to make my point clear in the question I was asking. You named a 4:5 ratio for mid vs. bottom table teams in a 32 team league. My point is that we can't know that until we have a 32 team league. As has been suggested earlier in this thread, a 32 team league would be the biggest top flight league in the world. We don't know what the drop off will be from #15 to #30.
I get your point that valuation drop off misses the point of TV revenue sharing drop off. But TV revenue sharing does not have to be done here as it is in Europe. So I think (and could be wrong) that we are back to my original premise that we have unfounded assumptions (financial deals must look like existing deals) and unanswered questions (how a 32 team league affects valuation and revenue top to bottom).
One other question: How many owners would have to vote to put pro/rel in place? Simple majority? Unanimous consent? If majority you'd only need 17 of 32 owners (or 15 of 28) to agree. That means you only need a limited number of owners to think they would gain from the deal (and never or rarely be relegated). Unanimous consent on the other hand would be very tough.
So what's the timeline for all of this expansion?
20 Teams - 2015
22 Teams - 2017
24 Teams - 2018
Then what? How long until 26? 28? 30? 32?
20 Teams - 2015
22 Teams - 2017
24 Teams - 2018
Then what? How long until 26? 28? 30? 32?
Earlier this year, the league established a target to expand to 28. There is no set time frame. I would be surprised to see us get to 26 before 2020.
2020 - Sacramento
2020 - San Antonio
2022 - San Diego
2022 - St. Louis
2026 - Detroit
2026 - Phoenix
2030 - Carolina
2030 - *Wildcard*
Stop at 32. Book it.
32 teams? Wtf? Are we really pushing for that man that's waaay to much then at that point something has to give: end salary cap or make true free agency.
With the cap system and other rules out there a better system to get players will be needed more than a draft.
Might as well make MLS 1 and MLS 2 by that point l.
With the cap system and other rules out there a better system to get players will be needed more than a draft.
Might as well make MLS 1 and MLS 2 by that point l.
Well a couple of things need to line up, Owner with money to burn, stadium plan in place and tv deals with networks.
Also a potential 2026 WC in the USA could accelerate things.
Similar threads
