Don't read too much into the bullshit.I understand the model, ref promotion / relegation ... its new to me, I will get my head round it and can see the reasoning. Don't know if I agree with it but I see it....
What I do not see is why any owner would buy into an MLS club ? I must be missing something, and if anyone can help me understand I will be grateful.
I am sure the points below are not as straight forward as I put them, (or at least I can't see the sense in them if they are)
1. You do not own the club (merely the Franchise)
2. The MLS dictate your Kit manufacturer .... closing a revenue stream ?
3. The MLS own your players contracts ? (or do I misunderstand this)
4. The MLS take a hefty commission on your transfer activity.
5. You cannot build a team for the long term because of the obstructions noted above, plus this draft system where players get taken off you to be allowed to go to other clubs (less successful clubs first picks ?)
5a.... what happens if a player does not want to go to a club that picks him ?
6. You spend money developing young talent, but you are limited to the numbers as the MLS don't allow you to hold too many... if you sell them see point 4.
7 The MLS have to sanction loan moves in and out (no doubt more commission)
8 If you cannot build a team for long term, one shitty season can half attendances ?
Don't read too much into the bullshit.
In MLS, when you buy a team, you've bought the team. They're yours. The whole single entity thing is only for three reasons -- 1. to protect owners from themselves 2. to protect the league from shitty owners and 3. to keep the players' wages in check.
The whole kit manufacturer thing is how all North American leagues roll. They believe they can get a better deal by selling themselves as a league rather than individual clubs. Whether or not that's true, I don't know but it is what it is.
As for not being able to build a team for the long term, I don't understand what you mean by that. The cores of several teams have remained untouched for years....
To my American sensibilities, its not as depressing as the fact that I would bet my life that I could name 15 EPL clubs every single year that won't win the EPL that year.I completely understand what you are saying here but stone me, what a depressing attitude to have!
That's the point though. The players should move up and down the leagues based on their performance, not the clubs. I'm not taking that bet because I don't know anything really about the clubs coming up. What I do know is that with so much turnover at Southampton and so many leaders and key figures being ripped away all at once, its hard to imagine the same success next season, even if the club is armed with a little more cash.Finally, on the Southampton point - you have to remember Lallana and Lambert were with Saints in League One, they now have the chance to go and play Champions League football, the club would have done their loyal players a huge disservice by not allowing them to follow a dream. As for the coach, it is what it is. I would argue that without plying their trade in the top division and doing so well would they have been able to aquire a coach of De Boers caliber? I highly doubt it.
To my American sensibilities, its not as depressing as the fact that I would bet my life that I could name 15 EPL clubs every single year that won't win the EPL that year.
I sure as hell wouldn't try that in MLS. I wouldn't dare try it with the MLS supporters shield either (a more fair comparison to the EPL title)
That's the point though. The players should move up and down the leagues based on their performance, not the clubs. I'm not taking that bet because I don't know anything really about the clubs coming up. What I do know is that with so much turnover at Southampton and so many leaders and key figures being ripped away all at once, its hard to imagine the same success next season, even if the club is armed with a little more cash.
Imagine this, the top 5 or 6 clubs in the EPL breakaway and form a closed league with all the other mega-clubs of Europe. Here they can hoard even more money and put on an amazing show every single week.
This frees up all the littler clubs to enjoy life where they might actually have a chance to win a domestic league title and since there's not the mega-money owners at the top of this new premier league, promotion and relegation would actually work like it was intended to. Clubs could actually be promoted, stay in the league and build up the resources needed to compete for a title!
It would be like how Americans view the NFL versus College Football. We know college football isn't the top tier of talent but if you love your hometown team, it doesn't matter. The product from both is still exciting and worth watching.
If the top clubs in Europe decide they're breaking away, nothing can stop them. They're too big, too rich, and too powerful. Why do you think UEFA always yields to Barca when trying to punish them?
Also, I doubt we ever see pro/rel in America. Its a country that's never had pro/rel anywhere. Plus, the rules of MLS means that even the big clubs could easily go down. Seattle probably paid $30 million or so to get into MLS in 2009 and were playing in front of about 10,000 fans in the second division.
Forbes, last year, valued Seattle at $175 million and they play in a stadium with 40-65,000 fans. Which owner is going to vote to jeopardize that kind of growth?
If the top clubs in Europe decide they're breaking away, nothing can stop them. They're too big, too rich, and too powerful. Why do you think UEFA always yields to Barca when trying to punish them?
Also, I doubt we ever see pro/rel in America. Its a country that's never had pro/rel anywhere. Plus, the rules of MLS means that even the big clubs could easily go down. Seattle probably paid $30 million or so to get into MLS in 2009 and were playing in front of about 10,000 fans in the second division.
Forbes, last year, valued Seattle at $175 million and they play in a stadium with 40-65,000 fans. Which owner is going to vote to jeopardize that kind of growth?
I tossed around pro/rel for college football but there are fundamental problems that arise that simply could not be solved. There's just too much pride and too many schools for it to ever work.
Basketball I've always thought should reduce their regular season to 60 games and setup some Euroleague vs. NBA single game elimination tournament.
This would give the NBA clubs massive exposure over in Europe.
Yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia - the big basketball countries over there.If you think soccer is starting behind many sports, then (in the UK) basketball is starting from a position somewhere akin to ANTARITIC VILLA FC.
Yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia - the big basketball countries over there.
Would it work if owners in both MLS and MLS2 were guaranteed the same money? I know it sounds stupid, like what is the incentive of winning?
I'd arguing winning in itself is the incentive.
Perhaps there would be no incentive to get promoted or no reason to fight relegation; but the fact of the matter would be that no matter a few teams would go up and a few would go down every season.
EDIT: I know it's a simplistic, naive view of things, but it's all I've got.
I don't think you'll ever have pro/rel, but if other teams in smaller markets generate significant followings and revenue, maybe the US Open Cup and CONCACAF Champions League gain more significance. For example, you'd have something like this:
MLS - Biggest markets, richest teams
NASL - Large/medium markets, a handful of rich teams
USL Pro - Medium/small markets, not much money
If the NASL and USL Pro continue to fight, and soccer continues to grow in all corners of the country, I could see interleague competitions become more important. Imagine MLS, billed as the one-and-only top league in the country, lose a few Open Cups or Champions League games to some top NASL teams. The media and fans would start to question the quality of their league. As a result, the interleague competitions become much more like College Football, where good mid-major programs are taken seriously and bowl games are a BIG deal as conferences try to prove on the field who's best.
I think the goal is for every city and region to feel like they are playing relevant soccer. Making interleague competitions relevant is one way to accomplish that.
Another possibility is if enough lower tier markets become financially viable for the MLS, the league could eat the lower levels and the MLS could approach something like 40 teams. This is essentially combining the Premiership and the Championship into one league. Hopefully, they would get creative with the scheduling, such as large group play rather than full round robins, to have the effects of pro/reg in any one season. For example:
36 Teams, 4 Groups of 9:
First 16 regular season games are home/home against the rest of your regional group
Top 4 from each group form a "premier division" for the second half of the season, playing every other team once for 15 more games
Bottom 5 from each group combine into a Eastern and Western Conference of 10 teams each
Top 6 from the premier division + the winners of the Eastern and Western Conference as wildcards make up an 8 team playoff bracket
Just something silly off the top of my head, but it would be a way for a vast MLS to push regional rivalries, national rivalries, and keep every team relevant the whole year
If you're going to 40, I'd break it down to 4 divisions of 10 (North, South, Central, West).
That would promote regional rivalries, playing 2 games against each team every year (18 total games). You could then play half of each of the other three divisions (15 games) for a 34 game season.
After the regular season, take the top 4 from each division and do group play (6 games), followed by an 8 team knockout bracket.
I know it's cultural and all, but I think leagues start to lose their charm the further over 20 teams they go.