No one would want to affiliate with Traffic when everyone knows they're actively seeking ownership changes at any or all of their clubs. Who would want to form a brand new affiliation and then meet their affiliate's new owners shortly afterward? Traffic also can't form three different affiliations while still owning the three clubs because there would be conflict of interest questions. NASL is in no position to make this sort of league-wide deal when some of their clubs would be undesirable partners for these reasons.
RSL announced their Reserve squad will play Phoenix FC 4 times this year but that their players weren't going there. RSL will remain in the Reserve League for 2013.
Latest update, Reserve League team USL-Pro opponents added (where known) Affiliations Sporting Kansas City/Orlando City New England Revolution/Rochester Rhinos Philadelphia Union/Harrisburg City Islanders DC United/Richmond Kickers Staying in Reserve League (USL-Pro opponent) Montreal Impact (Rochester Rhinos) Chicago Fire Columbus Crew Toronto FC Real Salt Lake (Phoenix FC) Known USL-Pro Independents none at this time
De jure, maybe not. De factor, sure as hell does. It's just not formalized in any way, until this announcement. This is the first step in the minor leagues of soccer becoming like MiLB, the D-League, AAA/AA Hockey, etc... And it's a good thing, it's the North American way of sports. You have one top league, and then feeder leagues.
Gotta say as an outsider I am most definitely looking forward to see how this match-up plays out. Besides the Cascadia matches (and your own clubs), Montreal vs Rochester were some of the best A-League/USl-1 games to follow. Hopefully, even if it is Montreal's Reserve club the rivalry can be reborn. Question, and sorry if this has been touched on already, but will there be any consideration made so MLS and their sister clubs don't meet in the Open Cup?
Well, the "North American" way of sports sucks balls. This is soccer and soccer is a global sport. We do not need "minor" leagues in soccer.
Looks like Vancouver will not have an affiliation either http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=49d6336d-faa4-4e64-9382-05a162e07908
Looks like there will be only four maybe five affiliations this season. announced KC and Orlando, acknowledged New England and Rochester, Richmond and DC United, and Philly and Harrisburg (who have had an affiliation for a couple years already) Also hearing possible Galaxy and LA Blues That said, no formal affiliation will not keep a MLS team from singular loans to teams and affiliation are expected to increase next season some good info in this article http://aol.sportingnews.com/soccer/...vid-beckham-sporting-kansas-city-orlando-city
Exactly. Hockey was in the same boat until about 10-13 years ago. The IHL and AHL operated as independent "non-major" (aka minor) leagues just below the NHL for decades. In the 90s, the IHL tried to make a push to compete with the NHL while the AHL sought to affiliate with NHL teams. It only took a couple of years for the AHL to become the affiliated AAA league. Anybody know what happened to the IHL? Here's a hint: the current league going by that name is not the semi-powerhouse from the 90s... Those that do not learn from history (NASL - Cosmos owners in particular) are doomed to repeat it. True, hockey is not soccer. But if you look at the big picture, there are many parallels. That is your opinion. The people with the money think otherwise... Nobody can really dispute that the lower levels have been a disaster for an unbelievable amount of time. So far stabilization has come nowhere near being realized, so it makes sense to attempt something similar to our country's other major sports (sans football). At the end of the day, this move is about money. Stabilization will help protect investments. Ideally it will lead to profitability. Better player development should do both of those things. It is fairly obvious that the leadership of both leagues feels that this move will stabilize USL Pro and the MLS Reserves (eventually under one banner) and produce better player development. It may or may not work, but considering that the current system is failing in regards to stabilization for both leagues (USLP & MLSR) and not really doing a bang up job on the development front, it certainly does not hurt to give it a shot. And the current system is similar to Germany and Spain, two countries that excel at player development. Certain D1 teams in those countries also field reserve/farm teams in the D3 leagues. Others have numerous agreements with specific teams in the lower leagues. Others sprinkle guys here and there. As long as the number of investors/teams interested in USL Pro is greater than the number of MLS teams, then we will see this kind of mix. Not every MLS side can afford to stock an entire reserve/D3 team, but expect a roster rule change that allows such a thing to occur as this deal evolves. On that note, what is the difference - in your mind - to having a reserve team playing other reserve teams in a closed, meaningless league versus having a mixture of full reserve teams, affiliated teams with a chunk of reserve players from an MLS team, and fully independent teams competing against each other in a true league? How is the latter not better all around? Presumably the presence of MLS reserve players will help increase the quality of the league as a whole. That says nothing about the potential for coaches and other resources that could be developed through this arrangement.
agreed, I'm excited to see some of the match-ups play out.... also with Rochester being New England's affiliate you would hope that could foster a bit of a rivalry between the Impact and the Revs as well.
This is an amazing opinion that no soccer club owner actually agrees with. Promotion Relegation is ********ing incredibly expensive and problematic for virtually every club involved. Also, this is America. As a Texan, you of all people should understand that thick headed individuality.
Well better get used to it. This proves you're not going to see pro/rel if MLS ever formalizes a relationship with the lower leagues. You're going to see them folded into an MLB style minor league hierarchy. Which shouldn't come as a surprise. Hell I wouldn't be surprised, if this MLS/USL partnership works out, to see USL formally folded in as MiLS one of these days.
What is individualistic about the single entity that is MLS? As a Texan, promotion/relegation speaks more to me than the single mindedness of MLS and a crappy minor league farm system. Where is the reward for excellent play in the minor leagues? Where is the accountability for doing poorly? I'm not saying pro/rel tomorrow, but jeez, this crap MLS is pulling is a step in the wrong direction for a proper US soccer pyramid.
I don't have to get used to caca! I'll keep supporting my local club as long as they are around and I'll keep watching EPL as it is a far superior product.
Please explain what you mean by this phrase. Who says that the steps being taken by MLS and USL Pro are not in the right direction for a proper US Soccer pyramid? Based on evidence supplied by every other domestic sport, I would say that their actions are correct to create a proper US Soccer pyramid. Every other sport in this country (save the NFL) has structured their leagues in a similar fashion; all have created sustainability that American soccer can only dream of across the board. The easiest way to prove the fallacy of pro/rel being successful is to look at a pro/rel league - any pro/rel league. Cover a ten year span, look at the table each year. You will notice that the same four or five teams are always at the top, the same teams are always in the middle, and the teams being relegated and promoted each year are nearly the same. Outside of berths to other tournaments, what are the middle (and bottom for that matter) teams playing for? The bottom guys are playing to not financially devastated; how awesome is that? Given a choice, I guarantee any money-smart owner would choose a non-rel league any day of week. Given the choice between what works well in the US (the minor league systems of MLB, NHL, and NBA) versus what only kind of works in Europe (pro/rel), I would take the former any day of the week. The main thing that all of you pro/rel fanatics flat out ignore is the financial aspect. Not only do you forget that the current MLS squads have invested tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) to join and remain in the league, but that many lower division teams have nowhere near that amount in start up cash. That's one of the reasons we've seen so many come and go. On top of that, pro/rel fanatics always ignore the financial implications of dropping down; it is devastating to teams when they fall out of the top leagues. And teams that are promoted still lack the financial ability to compete. Then there is the TV market issue. Quick question: Which team will draw more dollars in a contract negotiation - a shitty TFC or a surging Rochester/Charlseton/Wilmington. I'll give you a hint, it's the shitty team in the #4 US/Canada media market. Think about what happens to the league's bottom line and TV contract once all/most of their teams in the top media markets (NY, LA, Chi, Toronto, & Dallas are relegated in favor of current NASL/USL markets. It won't be pretty and would most likely be a major step backwards for professional soccer in the US as a whole, if not worse. Unless you absolutely do not follow anything college sports related, you are probably aware of the conference realignment circus. That pretty much revolves around media markets, with football ability playing second fiddle. Look at the B1G's last additions: Rutgers and Maryland. They didn't even sugar coat it; it was completely about the new markets. The MWC is looking at Rice to get the Houston market. Get this through your head: Nobody that is financially investing in American soccer wants to incorporate a system in which there is a precedent - even in Europe - for financial difficulty. Everybody involved wants stability and eventual profitability. By looking at what works in other American sports leagues, the people in charge - the people investing their money in the sport - have made a determination about what will make this happen.
There sure doesn't seem to be much demand for affiliates, does there? Look how few MLS clubs are actually jumping in and doing it. The main point for most of them may be just to get more reserve games and that's it. MLS has such a strong history of possessiveness regarding its prospects that the scarcity of confirmed affiliations here seems to be very much in character. I think this is really about the games, not affiliations.
I'm all for it being about getting more games for the reserve players, one way or another. The thing I like about this setup is that is kind of tailored to allow each team to do what's best for their unique situation. Straight reserve teams work well for some teams, like Portland, who actually draw crowds to games. Some teams don't have the depth for a proper reserve side or don't feel that a full blown reserve team is in their financial interest, like the four that have announced affiliations. And some have their head up their ass, like CUSA* apparently. But the whole league (save CUSA*) is working to get their reserves more games through this partnership. *Based on the rumor that they are not fielding a reserve team or affiliating with anybody.
Affiliations Sporting Kansas City/Orlando City New England Revolution/Rochester Rhinos Philadelphia Union/Harrisburg City Islanders DC United/Richmond Kickers Staying in Reserve League (USL-Pro opponent) Montreal Impact (Rochester Rhinos) Chicago Fire Columbus Crew Toronto FC Real Salt Lake (Phoenix FC) Vancouver Whitecaps Known USL-Pro Independents none at this time
Is that even an option? Sure didn't sound like it from what I read. Almost certain it won't be next year. That'll be a rude awakening for Goats Sporting Club of the United States of America.