USL

[moogoo]

Maybe they can have a New York team that's not a small cog in a European team's system...just saying seriously doubt this goes anywhere.

to me it sounds like they are gonna target smaller markets. but they have a long way to go to truly compete with MLS for TV and attention. MLS already struggles in the main stream US sports market. USL isn't going to leapfrog MLS without a really good plan implemented to perfection.

but it would be interesting if they changed their system to pro/reg with seasons matching most of the rest of the world. they already have their tiers established. more soccer is always a good thing. if it brings more players to this country to play, that can't be bad. more players, more fans, more youth development. it's all for the best in the end.

 

[LionNYC]

to me it sounds like they are gonna target smaller markets. but they have a long way to go to truly compete with MLS for TV and attention. MLS already struggles in the main stream US sports market. USL isn't going to leapfrog MLS without a really good plan implemented to perfection.

but it would be interesting if they changed their system to pro/reg with seasons matching most of the rest of the world. they already have their tiers established. more soccer is always a good thing. if it brings more players to this country to play, that can't be bad. more players, more fans, more youth development. it's all for the best in the end.

There are Profession League Standards that US Soccer sets for Division One status. That requires a certain number of teams be in markets with at least 1 million in population.

Per this Wikipedia article that's 54 markets...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

MLS is not currently in Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, San Antonio, Pittsburg, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Providence, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Memphis, Birmingham, Fresno, Grand Rapid, Buffalo, Hartford, Tucson, Rochester, or Tulsa. (I consider San Jose be in the SF-Bay Area combined market).

 

[moogoo]

There are Profession League Standards that US Soccer sets for Division One status. That requires a certain number of teams be in markets with at least 1 million in population.

Per this Wikipedia article that's 54 markets...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

MLS is not currently in Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, San Antonio, Pittsburg, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Providence, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Memphis, Birmingham, Fresno, Grand Rapid, Buffalo, Hartford, Tucson, Rochester, or Tulsa. (I consider San Jose be in the SF-Bay Area combined market).

that's certainly enough for a league table.

 

[gbservis]

There are Profession League Standards that US Soccer sets for Division One status. That requires a certain number of teams be in markets with at least 1 million in population.

Per this Wikipedia article that's 54 markets...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

MLS is not currently in Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, San Antonio, Pittsburg, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Providence, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Memphis, Birmingham, Fresno, Grand Rapid, Buffalo, Hartford, Tucson, Rochester, or Tulsa. (I consider San Jose be in the SF-Bay Area combined market).

My bet is that the end game is to try to force a merger with MLS.

 

[KevinJRogers]

that's certainly enough for a league table.

They might be able to do it. They'll have 31 teams in the Championship once the newest ones are up and running, and League One is at 15. That's more than enough to institute pro/rel and have two sizable leagues.

This could get intriguing. I noticed way fewer Friday night matches on the Hartford schedule this year -- it's down from five to just one. The rest of the matches are on Wednesday evenings (four, same as last season) and Saturday (mostly 7 p.m. kickoffs).

Hmm. I wonder if Indy Eleven getting screwed out of their stadium pissed everyone off.

 

[mgarbowski]

There are Profession League Standards that US Soccer sets for Division One status. That requires a certain number of teams be in markets with at least 1 million in population.

When I read that, I immediately thought: that's incompatible with Pro/Rel.

This article has more details and agrees:

USL Division One: which clubs could be in, and can it succeed?

On the USL's bold plan to compete with MLS at the D1 level

www.usltactics.com

You need 75% of clubs in Div1 to meet the 1 million metro area population standard to comply. The article projects that USL would have 83% of the Division 1 teams in 1M population areas in the first year. But there's no way to ensure that is maintained if you have Pro/Rel. The Division 1 rules also require a minimum of 12 teams in the league in Year 1, and 14 by Year 3. So maybe they go to 16 to make my math easy.

75% of 16 is 12, and that would mean the only way to guarantee compliance year to year would be to have no more than 4 sub 1M locations in the entire USL system, because if you have 5 of say 60 teams in small markets, and all 5 end up in Div1 at the same time, you're non-compliant. The rule is basically designed to make Pro/Rel impossible. Maybe not by intent, but that's what it does in practice.

I kind of hate the Pro/Rel partisans because so many are obsessive and tiresome as they turn every conversation into a Pro/Rel discussion, but that's not right. If someone wants to make a go of an open Pro/Rel system in the US it should be possible. I understand you want benchmarks that make success more likely than not, and population is a useful benchmark in that regard. The rule should require a certain level of 1M population centers in the entire system, and then let it shake out however it does. The teams located in higher population areas have a presumptive advantage anyway.

 

[ZYanksRule]

When I read that, I immediately thought: that's incompatible with Pro/Rel.

This article has more details and agrees:

USL Division One: which clubs could be in, and can it succeed?

On the USL's bold plan to compete with MLS at the D1 level

www.usltactics.com

You need 75% of clubs in Div1 to meet the 1 million metro area population standard to comply. The article projects that USL would have 83% of the Division 1 teams in 1M population areas in the first year. But there's no way to ensure that is maintained if you have Pro/Rel. The Division 1 rules also require a minimum of 12 teams in the league in Year 1, and 14 by Year 3. So maybe they go to 16 to make my math easy.

75% of 16 is 12, and that would mean the only way to guarantee compliance year to year would be to have no more than 4 sub 1M locations in the entire USL system, because if you have 5 of say 60 teams in small markets, and all 5 end up in Div1 at the same time, you're non-compliant. The rule is basically designed to make Pro/Rel impossible. Maybe not by intent, but that's what it does in practice.

I kind of hate the Pro/Rel partisans because so many are obsessive and tiresome as they turn every conversation into a Pro/Rel discussion, but that's not right. If someone wants to make a go of an open Pro/Rel system in the US it should be possible. I understand you want benchmarks that make success more likely than not, and population is a useful benchmark in that regard. The rule should require a certain level of 1M population centers in the entire system, and then let it shake out however it does. The teams located in higher population areas have a presumptive advantage anyway.

I do wonder if USL's endgame is a merger with MLS where there is pro/rel. I don't think MLS would want to do it because of the high risk to owners, but there would certainly be enough of an ecosystem at that point between all the USL leagues and MLS where pro/rel would work pretty similarly to Premier League/EFL.

Would pro/rel increase interest in MLS when the risk of going down is there? I would imagine it does. But would the owners allow their investments to be put at such a high risk? Probably not. And how would, for example, Westchester SC be able to play in MLS if they got promoted up when they have such a small stadium and no possibility of getting a bigger stadium?

 

[413Blue]

And how would, for example, Westchester SC be able to play in MLS if they got promoted up when they have such a small stadium and no possibility of getting a bigger stadium?

The same way it happens in England. They simply can't compete and go back to the lower divisions after their short adventure.

 

[ZYanksRule]

The same way it happens in England. They simply can't compete and go back to the lower divisions after their short adventure.

I get that -- listen I love the idea of pro/rel. I think it would add so much to American sports. I want it in baseball and I want it in MLS. I completely understand why USL wants it, I just don't see a scenario in which MLS agrees to it.

 

[Victors87]

I get that -- listen I love the idea of pro/rel. I think it would add so much to American sports. I want it in baseball and I want it in MLS. I completely understand why USL wants it, I just don't see a scenario in which MLS agrees to it.

They can do it like in Latin America they take take avg of 2 seasons and lowest team gets relegated.

 

[ZYanksRule]

They can do it like in Latin America they take take avg of 2 seasons and lowest team gets relegated.

It doesn't matter how they do it. MLS owners will not allow their investment to be at risk of losing the kind of money you'd lose through relegation. That's the issue, and that's why it'll never happen here.

Pro/rel would probably increase the overall value of MLS through higher viewership and national attention, but individual teams who go down ... I just can't see owners agreeing to it.

 

[FootyLovin]

Pro/rel would probably increase the overall value of MLS through higher viewership and national attention, but individual teams who go down ... I just can't see owners agreeing to it.

But this is exactly why they would do it. How much vote is needed? Majority? Super majority? Can’t require all.

When enough owners (a) believe their team value will rise with it and/or (b) fear their value will erode without it, then the votes will be there.

I wonder how owners of perennial bubble teams in Europe feel about it. Has the value of Southampton or Burnley gone up over the years more or would they have been better off as bottom feeders in an EPL without pro/rel? My guess is that in relegated years they take a cash flow hit but that overall the value of the asset increases much faster in pro/rel than it otherwise would. Long game and competitive owners would vote for it.

 

[mgarbowski]

wonder how owners of perennial bubble teams in Europe feel about it. Has the value of Southampton or Burnley gone up over the years more or would they have been better off as bottom feeders in an EPL without pro/rel? My guess is that in relegated years they take a cash flow hit but that overall the value of the asset increases much faster in pro/rel than it otherwise would. Long game and competitive owners would vote for it.

Yoyo teams in Italy Spain or France might give a different answer than those in England.

I am unconvinced that Pro/Rel has much or even anything to do with the success of the big soccer leagues. Almost every soccer league in the world has it and most are filled with teams struggling to pay bills. The marginal extra attention afforded to last place teams does not IMO compensate for the instability forced upon almost everyone.
Oh you started the year confident of finishing safely 7-12? Well bad luck the refs missed a few calls and your striker had an untimely dry spell so fire your manager after 12 games, blow up your plans, and make a desperate acquisition in the secondary window.
We’re arguing about the efficacy of 2-4 year plans in MLS and everywhere else you can’t even be certain of keeping to a 1 year plan.
Columbus is not even in the top 30 metro area populations in the USA but has 2 of the last 5 Cups. You can’t map that directly to the European leagues because of country size and big cities having many teams, but there’s clearly nothing like it no matter what adjustments you make.

 

[mgarbowski]

Further- for any team - the answer to “are you better off in a closed or open league system” can only be answered by knowing what level they would be if closed.
The teams who tried to create the Super League know more than you or me and they tried to eliminate pro rel for themselves.

 

[Seth]

Yoyo teams in Italy Spain or France might give a different answer than those in England.

I am unconvinced that Pro/Rel has much or even anything to do with the success of the big soccer leagues. Almost every soccer league in the world has it and most are filled with teams struggling to pay bills. The marginal extra attention afforded to last place teams does not IMO compensate for the instability forced upon almost everyone.
Oh you started the year confident of finishing safely 7-12? Well bad luck the refs missed a few calls and your striker had an untimely dry spell so fire your manager after 12 games, blow up your plans, and make a desperate acquisition in the secondary window.
We’re arguing about the efficacy of 2-4 year plans in MLS and everywhere else you can’t even be certain of keeping to a 1 year plan.
Columbus is not even in the top 30 metro area populations in the USA but has 2 of the last 5 Cups. You can’t map that directly to the European leagues because of country size and big cities having many teams, but there’s clearly nothing like it no matter what adjustments you make.

I'm stayin' out of this one LOL

<ominous music>For now</ominous music> LOLOL

 

[FootyLovin]

Yoyo teams in Italy Spain or France might give a different answer than those in England.

I am unconvinced that Pro/Rel has much or even anything to do with the success of the big soccer leagues. Almost every soccer league in the world has it and most are filled with teams struggling to pay bills. The marginal extra attention afforded to last place teams does not IMO compensate for the instability forced upon almost everyone.
Oh you started the year confident of finishing safely 7-12? Well bad luck the refs missed a few calls and your striker had an untimely dry spell so fire your manager after 12 games, blow up your plans, and make a desperate acquisition in the secondary window.
We’re arguing about the efficacy of 2-4 year plans in MLS and everywhere else you can’t even be certain of keeping to a 1 year plan.
Columbus is not even in the top 30 metro area populations in the USA but has 2 of the last 5 Cups. You can’t map that directly to the European leagues because of country size and big cities having many teams, but there’s clearly nothing like it no matter what adjustments you make.

You are corroborating the point I made but not refuting my speculation. I agree (and said) pro/rel will lead to short term cash hits. What I wonder about, and I don’t think we can answer, is how pro/rel affects the value of the team. That desperate scenario you describe, the unpredictability, may be tough on a cash strapped team/owner. But does that same owner who struggles to pay bills have a more rapidly growing asset? I don’t know.

And I don’t think the Super League is evidence. Those weren’t pro/rel teams trying to close their own leagues. They were trying to create an all-star league completely different from anything else on the market. In fact, that may be one of the best arguments in favor of pro/rel. Here we are a closed league and there is regular conversation about switching to pro/rel. In any of the pro/rel leagues around the world (or of more interest to me, around the big 5), is there ever a call for those leagues to close up?

 

[gbservis]

You are corroborating the point I made but not refuting my speculation. I agree (and said) pro/rel will lead to short term cash hits. What I wonder about, and I don’t think we can answer, is how pro/rel affects the value of the team. That desperate scenario you describe, the unpredictability, may be tough on a cash strapped team/owner. But does that same owner who struggles to pay bills have a more rapidly growing asset? I don’t know.

And I don’t think the Super League is evidence. Those weren’t pro/rel teams trying to close their own leagues. They were trying to create an all-star league completely different from anything else on the market. In fact, that may be one of the best arguments in favor of pro/rel. Here we are a closed league and there is regular conversation about switching to pro/rel. In any of the pro/rel leagues around the world (or of more interest to me, around the big 5), is there ever a call for those leagues to close up?

I'm sure a handful of big MLS teams would be willing to do it but it's hard to imagine the league securing unanimous approval from all ownership groups for Pro/Rel. Attempting to implement it without full agreement would likely trigger a massive lawsuit from dissenting teams. While I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics of the MLS ownership agreement, it’s difficult to see how the league avoids serious legal challenges if it unilaterally changes the terms and puts owners $300M+ clubs at risk without their agreement.

 

[FootyLovin]

I'm sure a handful of big MLS teams would be willing to do it but it's hard to imagine the league securing unanimous approval from all ownership groups for Pro/Rel. Attempting to implement it without full agreement would likely trigger a massive lawsuit from dissenting teams. While I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics of the MLS ownership agreement, it’s difficult to see how the league avoids serious legal challenges if it unilaterally changes the terms and puts owners $300M+ clubs at risk without their agreement.

I think a while back someone (maybe even I) asked the question about what is the process. Does it take a majority, super majority, or unanimous vote? If that is written into the bylaws I assume it would eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit. Owners might not like it, but the legality seems clear. If it’s a unanimous vote, then it’ll never happen. But I wonder how many votes there would be for it.

 

[KevinJRogers]

I think a while back someone (maybe even I) asked the question about what is the process. Does it take a majority, super majority, or unanimous vote? If that is written into the bylaws I assume it would eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit. Owners might not like it, but the legality seems clear. If it’s a unanimous vote, then it’ll never happen. But I wonder how many votes there would be for it.

I'd be surprised if there are any. I can't imagine anyone plunking down hundreds of millions of dollars for a franchise and then deciding to risk their investment by agreeing to the possibility of relegation.

Besides, relegation to where? MLS Next Pro is third division. USL is the second division. Establishing pro/rel under current circumstances would mean getting relegated out of the MLS system and into the USL and promoting USL teams into MLS.

How would that work? MLS is a single entity. The league owns the teams. At the first relegation, MLS would be chucking their own properties out of their own league and replacing them with independent USL clubs which they have no ownership interest in.

There's only one way it could work: MLS would have to completely transform its business structure and convert all the franchises to independent clubs. Theoretically possible, I guess, but I can't imagine the scenario where they would do that. It would put the league in the exact position it's been trying to avoid for the last 30 years.

 

[FootyLovin]

I'd be surprised if there are any. I can't imagine anyone plunking down hundreds of millions of dollars for a franchise and then deciding to risk their investment by agreeing to the possibility of relegation.

Besides, relegation to where? MLS Next Pro is third division. USL is the second division. Establishing pro/rel under current circumstances would mean getting relegated out of the MLS system and into the USL and promoting USL teams into MLS.

How would that work? MLS is a single entity. The league owns the teams. At the first relegation, MLS would be chucking their own properties out of their own league and replacing them with independent USL clubs which they have no ownership interest in.

There's only one way it could work: MLS would have to completely transform its business structure and convert all the franchises to independent clubs. Theoretically possible, I guess, but I can't imagine the scenario where they would do that. It would put the league in the exact position it's been trying to avoid for the last 30 years.

For me that’s the clearest explanation I’ve heard.