The Future Of Mls

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....
 
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....

Thank you for your reply.
The team thing is / was my (mis) understanding of the draft system. I thought the clubs picked from the pool each season.
 
I completely understand what you are saying here but stone me, what a depressing attitude to have!
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)

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.
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.
 
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.


You speak a lot of sense.

Having been at both ends of this spectrum, nothing is more heartbreaking to a fan than relegation, and nothing more elating than winning a league.
Relegation battles however hold as much interest for the fans as title or promotion contenders / deciders and keep revenue in the game.
I also hate the play off principle (in the UK it is slightly different over there), as after you have played a full league season that is your finishing spot, why should you play a cup comp to get the promotion ?
However the flip side is it keeps mid table sides interested all season, with something to aim at and play for. In the case of the PL it is not a play off but a European place keeping mid table sides interested and big games flowing all season.
So every club has its target and can develop gradually. It is now got to the stage where the big 2 have turned in to the big 6 and the European places are harder to get. Which is where your argument comes in.....

Personally I see your logic. But no promotion / relegation does not give the fans the same anticipation.
If a big club gets relegated (and they do) they become everyone s cup final in the division below.
When a small club gets promoted every game is a cup final for the fans.

The game is about the fans. I like the concept that all clubs battle on an equal footing.
Perhaps there should be a ceiling on transfer amounts (say £50 mill per club per season) but whatever FFP is not the answer as it keeps the big big and the small small.

All of that said, I hate the prospect of an elite cartel (but see the sense in your argument). That also takes away from the fans.... The Burnley fans can no longer dream of beating City / United / Chelsea / Arsenal etc etc.

I don't know what it is but there must be a mid ground answer...

The solution must be FIFA led, but maybe it is along the lines of splitting all ground receipts 50 - 50, and just maybe there is a case for kit sponsorships to be across the league and split evenly. It goes against all my capitalist principles, but for the good of the game maybe it is right on this instance.

If the big clubs get greedy and try to break away and international ban on there players playing for there country should make it less attractive.

So perhaps (sick of the word maybe) the MLS has the beginnings of the way forward, and the MLS may need to introduce Promotion and Relegation, but the rest of football may need to take its fair share principles.
 
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?


If they break away, the rest of football has to restrict them, so that the weaker amongst them gets weaker and the strong stronger, eventually they will become no more than a display league.

Restrictions should include
1) Not selecting players that join them for international games thus reducing their commerciallity
2) Not allowing non elite clubs to play them in any way (inc frendlies) what so ever.
3) Not allowing FIFA registered referees to officiate them
4) Sanction against any kit manufacturer that works for them (prohibited suppliers) (say Nike has a deal with one or more of the clubs, then Nike is excluded from selection for a league club supply, hopefully anywhere in the playing area)

I know this is extreme and some of it probably unworkable, but it should be the game as a whole that is protected.
FFP only protects the rich

I would include Man City in this, even though we now dine at the top table, I would hate to see my club become a member of the Cartel via FFP (or any other method), which is something we have fought against.
 
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 think the latter is a good reason why it won't happen, but the former isn't. I think other leagues are starting to look at European football models and thing about how they could change their leagues to reflect some of the goods of those models. Just last night, NBA commissioner Adam Silver spoke about creating a midseason tournament which had a lot of connections to an FA Cup type thing (though I think only NBA teams would participate). I for one, think that promotion and relegation could easily work to smooth out a lot of the issues college football is having.
 
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.
 
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 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.

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.
 
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.
 
Yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia - the big basketball countries over there.

Appologies, I was not aware there were big basketball countries in Europe
 
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 think that'd be hard to guarantee totally. Now, what MLS could do is divide TV money equally amount the clubs in a MLS and MLS 2. I'm not sure they would be willing to ensure that say sponsorships and fan attendance revenue, etc. should also be the same. So for that to happen, you'd have to get to a point where the TV money dwarfs the attendance revenue + develop a devoted fanbase to the point that you don't have an empty stadium when you get relegated. Relegation works in Europe because the fans will follow the club down; whether Americans will do the same is an interesting question since it hasn't been tried before.
 
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
 
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

I'd be curious if MLS gets to the point where you could have 40 teams whether they would simply just divide into two 20 team leagues, West v. East. You can have a EPL type schedule with a lot of local rivalries, with all of the matches within reasonable travel distance.

I tried to come up with 40 markets. This is what I got.

West
1. Seattle
2. Portland
3. Vancouver
4. San Jose
5. LA Galaxy
6. Ghost of Chivas
7. RSL
8. Colorado
9. Houston
10. FC Dallas
11. Sporting KC
12. San Antonio
13. St. Louis
14. Sacramento
15. Phoenix
16. Las Vegas
17. San Diego
18. Oklahoma City
19. Edmonton
20. Anaheim

East:
1. NYCFC
2. RBNY
3. NE
4. Chicago
5. Toronto
6. Montreal
7. DC
8. Atlanta
9. Orlando
10. Miami
11. Columbus
12. Philadelphia Union
13. Minneapolis
14. New Orleans
15. Tampa
16. Charlotte
17. Nashville
18. Pittsburgh
19. Milwaukee
20. Baltimore

Now, you can nitpick on individual choices. Las Vegas has no sports teams due to the gambling, but with soccer's more lenient attitude and its Hispanic population I could see MLS make a strong play there. Overall I hard a harder time coming up with West cities than East and have basically maxed out CA (6 teams!) and Texas (3).

However, if it happens you have some great rivalries. Cascadia Cup, a California Battle Royale, Texas, Florida, Northeast. It could be fun.

But I'm not sure those 40 cities would all be great and equal homes to MLS.
 
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.
 
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.

Oh, I like that. That could work. So:

West
1. Seattle
2. Vancouver
3. Portland
4. Edmonton
5. LA Galaxy
6. Ghost of Chivas
7. Sacramento
8. San Jose
9. Anaheim
10. San Diego

Central:
1. RSL
2. Colorado
3. Phoenix
4. Sporting KC
5. St. Louis
6. Houston
7. FC Dallas
8. San Antonio
9. Minneapolis
10. Vegas

South:
1. Atlanta
2. Orlando
3. Miami
4. Tampa
5. Charlotte
6. Nashville
7. DC United
8. Baltimore
9. New Orleans
10. OKC

North:
1. NYCFC
2. RBNY
3. NE
4. Columbus
5. Philadelphia
6. Pittsburgh
7. Milwaukee
8. Chicago
9. Toronto
10. Montreal

Yeah, that would work. Gets a little funky because really you have 9 solid central teams, so you have to split off Minneapolis (otherwise you've got to put OKC there, which means grabbing someone from the North to plug into the South) but otherwise fairly smooth.
 
I know it's cultural and all, but I think leagues start to lose their charm the further over 20 teams they go.
 
I know it's cultural and all, but I think leagues start to lose their charm the further over 20 teams they go.

I agree, which is why I like the smaller divisions and a two-stage season that includes a group stage prior to the knockout round of the playoffs. Each division has charm. The regular season is over 50% regional play. The group stage is the national round among the best teams in the nation. Then the playoffs is the American way of determining a champion.

European translation would be League Play (Regular Season, 4 "Leagues"/Divisions, Some Interleague Play) -> Champions League (Best from each "league" play in a group stage) -> Cup Tournament

Side Note: I would also push for a CCL reformat where it's all played in the spring. It would overlap with MLS's divisional play, when the best teams are generally facing their weakest competition.