I'm not buying it. And let me explain. 1. I'm guessing you watch international club soccer right? What is your interest in watching the first division of Thailand? Probably not high (unless you have some personal connection to Thailand through family or something). If they had pro/rel or didn't have pro/rel would that change your mind? Does pro/rel itself turn something from a non-fan into a fan? Do you watch indoor soccer or women's soccer? If they added pro/rel would you then watch? I don't think that pro/rel alone increases anyone interest in watching the game other than fans of the 2nd division teams. No one is going to start watching a league simply because pro/rel. The factors that allow someone to be a fan are quality of play, general interest in the sport, and connection to the team (geographic or cultural). Pro/rel alone doesn't change those things and doesn't create new fans. 2. We already are very different than other leagues. Is there an open competition allowing MLB and all minor league teams to compete head to head in one national championship? Is there a competition allowing for the world championships of basketball in which all the best teams from Asia, Latin America, Europe, and NBA all compete? MLS with its unique international and domestic competitions are ALREADY unique. But it doesn't move the needle. In England the FA cup was a huge deal for generations, it wasn't until recently that fans viewed even willing Europe as more important than winning the FA cup. That was created by the CULTURE not by the competition format. We already have an open competition (USOC) and have for a century, but no one cares. The competition format does not create the culture. 3. Our local attendances do well while national TV numbers do poorly because MLS is not the best league in the world. If you are a basketball fan living in San Diego or St. Louis or KC you will watch the NBA because its the best in the world. Other US leagues get the benefit of capturing all the viewers of that sport because the US league is the best and there are not even good options to watch other international leagues. Soccer is never going to be like that. You can change our format any way you want and its not going to make Barca and Man United or Club America disappear. Huge market share is always going to go to those international clubs no matter how we change our format. It isn't like the millions who watch non-MLS teams are going to stop simply because the San Antonio Scorpions or Carolina RailHawks can now be promoted. It just doesn't change anything.
Why do you need an MLS 2 to do that? Why not just send your reserve teams down to NASL and forget about pro/rel. Sure our development system can improve, but you don't need pro/rel to do that.
You don't need an MLS2 for that. I'm discussing are there potential positives to an MLS2. Either route is an option, obviously, but just because one is an option doesn't mean the other option doesn't carry any weight. Yes, sending reserve teams to NASL could work. But, I'd also say NASL would be of higher quality down the road and improve at a faster rate if it was MLS2 and clubs had the potential of moving up to MLS1. The competition and ability to move up would most likely bring in more investment and put more concentration on development, which would make it a better place for MLS1 players to play, either on loan or as reserves. Another option is no pro/rel at all, but having an MLS2 be a reserve/U23 league for all intent and purpose. That would also be attractive to me.
The issue with relegating single entity franchises is that the league owns a stake in every club and every club bought into the league. Relegation will devalue that club and franchise rights. In MLS2 you are going to get less attendance, you are going to get smaller sponsorship deals, you won't be on TV (or as much). Any way you slice it since the clubs are owned by the league and the clubs will make less money in D2, then you need a scenario in which the league agrees to just loose money. You can argue that new teams may add new value, but from a league perspective they can just add those teams without relegation though expansion. So you might see some kind of benefits like with development for instance, but since you can obtain those benefits without relegation, it really is a non starter. Its like if it is cold in my house, I guess I could just set fire to my bedroom OR I could just turn on the heat. Both in the end will make the house less cold, but one option would be a financial nightmare. And because of that it really shouldn't be considered.
Despite the people calling for pro/rel, I don't think the average American fan would like it. Our sports teams are part of our identities and our cities' identities, and that means being entitled to play in the first tier, because you're a major league city, and that's your identity. Cuz you rule.
I think there is something to be said about trying to use pro/rel in leagues with clubs that are a century old and established parts of communities and trying to create pro/rel in a new league full of expansion teams. Our clubs are already trying to find fans in crowded sports markets and to form a new team just to send them to what will be considered the 'minor leagues' is going to be a very bad thing for these teams. Sports teams take generations to really develop deep ties to communities. In Chicago I think a team like the Cubs could be 'relegated' to AAA and bounce back because its the Cubs and they have a huge fan base that goes back more than a century. Peoples dads and grandfathers and great grandfathers all supported that team. We don't have that in soccer here in the US. If you relegate the Fire into NASL I think it would be really hard to bounce back. General interest would be gone and only the die hards would go. Going to Fire games in NASL would probably be like going to USOC Fire games. You'd get maybe 5-8k people there, and the team would bleed money due to the stadium deal and eventually the club would just die. Even if they came back to MLS it would be with a fraction of the fan base. Its just the reality of the situation. I don't think pro/rel is going to create many more fans in MLS markets but I could easily see it loosing fans. Another big factor with comparing a relegation of the Cubs with the Fire is not only the generations of fan issue but also MLB place in the global baseball world and MLS place in the global soccer world. Its not like Cubs fans can just ignore the relegation of the Cubs and abandon MLB to watch FAR superior leagues in Asia or Latin America. If you relegate the Fire you'll just get thousands of people who won't watch MLS and just watch European or Mexican leagues. I think we are in a really unique position where are teams are not only new but also not that great. If you relegate them it wouldn't be hard for fans to just adopt new teams and abandon the entire league. That really wouldn't happen if you relegated any other US pro sports team.
So we're just ignoring the fact that there is a completely different way of thinking and acceptance of what "is" and "isn't" here in America when dealing with sports as compared to the rest of the soccer world .... .... and then we're just going to ignore the fact that there is heavy corporate "floating" or "sponsorship" in Japan that simply is not done here. ??? In that case, sure it's all Wonder Bread.
What is the big deal with wanting pro/rel to be the ultimate goal of soccer in America. This allows for any soccer club in any community the "chance" to dream big and make it to Division I. I could give a flip about any current team in the MLS because my team plays in the NASL. I'll watch MLS occasionally, because I love soccer, but the outcomes don't mean squat to me right now.
Don't get me wrong, the development of the professional game in Japan has been amazing, but the footballing situation has been quite a bit different over there all the way down to the youth level to the professional level for quite some time(i.e. before the J.League). The biggest lesson I think MLS can learn from Japan is the importance trying to make sure that every town has a club (not just some franchise - ) they can root AND play for (i.e. youth system). Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that an open pyramid is necessary, but I do think the league has a lot to gain in the long term by helping the lower divisions grow and stabilize. Personally, I think the idea of promotion/relegation is way sexier. However, the idea of a regionalized MLS2 with lower barriers to entry, lower salary floors/caps, albeit without promotion is still pretty freaking good if that means most medium size cities have a place to see pro soccer on weekends. PS. Sagantosu is taking on Urawa this weekend. A win gives Tosu a chance at Asian CL glory. Get pumped.
Japan is smaller geographically than California. Its very similar sized to Montana. And the US/Canada has 3 times the population and growing while Japan's population is shrinking. If everyone in the US lived in Montana, than putting an MLS team in every city or at least giving every fan and kid a local team wouldn't be an issue. The issue is when you combine 2 of the largest countries geographically in the world (US and Canada) and create one franchise based D1 for both countries. Any way you slice it there are going to be huge gaps. Even if we had an MLS 1 and MLS2 with pro/rel you'd still have metro markets of 2M that still didn't have a team. If MLS wanted to give everyone a club, then the only way I could even see it being a possibility is if we expanded to NFL size (32 teams) and then made each team develop baseball style minor league ownership without pro/rel. So for instance Chicago Fire might own a team in Milwaukee or Des Moines or Madison. So with a 'AAA' 'AA' and 'A' teams, MLS in fact has about 100 teams spread across US/Canada. That still wouldn't give us a club in every town like we have a HS team in every town, but it would allow us to cover all the major markets and pretty much give everyone someone to root for. Now if someone is going to root for an expansion MLS 3 team in Des Moines when they can just watch Barca on their 50 inch TV is the question that pro/rel doesn't answer.
If you go back and actually read through the discussions about pro/rel ... you'll find those of us on the "against" it side (that actually discuss the topic) aren't actually against pro/rel in of itself. Many of us love pro/rel as a concept and enjoy it where it's practical and fits the sporting landscape. The debate isn't against pro/rel. The first part of the debate is against pro/rel here in the United States making any sense whatsoever given our history, acceptance of the game, and the business of sport here. Realistically it just isn't there. The other half of the debate is against those that come on here and just post thoughtless, baseless, and otherwise ignorant things about pro/rel is the magical end all be all of soccer and that the USA/MLS is freaking stupid, backwards, and needs to do everything differently than how Garber and the execs have actually done it. You know, the way that actually managed to start up, sustain, and grow a domestic soccer league here in the United States.
Pro/rel works in Europe because the clubs are independent actors, and the leagues are set up by the federations. In North American sports, the leagues operate like any other business: the owners buy franchises of a brand. A person buying a McDonalds or a Subway isn't just buying a fast food restaurant, they're buying an extension of that brand. Not only is that brand valuable, but the people who steward that brand want to make sure that their franchise owners have the financial clout to make the franchise successful. That's why you see the ridiculous amounts of money leagues charge for new teams. In order for pro/rel to work here, the way leagues are structured would have to change pretty dramatically. The fans in soccer might be different from other sports, but the owners, on a macro level, are not. They want to protect their investments as much as possible.
You are so wrong. It is not that Garber has done a bad job or is backwards or stupid as you put it. Garber has done a great job. Like many other posters have stated they support teams in the NASL or USL and do not follow MLS clubs. PRO/REL is not the magical end all as you put it. It is a start though to truly start identifying the countries best players through competition. It will also give the fans of these other clubs in the NASL or USL to go and buy tickets. The USSF announced yesterday that it is financially backing a new women's pro league and would like other MLS clubs to join like the Portland Timbers have. Gulati and the MLS should be putting these resources into a second division with an eye on creating a pro/rel league. Women's soccer in the United States will always produce a top 3 national team internationally because of the enormous amount of money poured into women's soccer in the United States. The NCAA is perfect for women's soccer. The NCAA is the richest women's soccer league in the world. It will be interesting if the MLS owners jump in on this new women's pro league. The MLS owners in my opinion should concentrate on how to make the MLS the best league in the world. If the answer is to add a women's league before concentrating on how to incorporate the NASL and the USL clubs, well....
Here in America? Maybe in American football or traditional American sports, not in soccer. You sound like Mitt, Newt, Hannity and Bill O on fox news.
It is not that any government is forcing American soccer to do anything. It is called competition at the professional level. Last I checked, neither the United States or Australia are soccer powers on the men's side of the game. What is the reasoning for that? On the women's side though, the United States and Australia are world powers.
You apparently misunderstood my question. Why would current MLS owners agree to a pro/rel system? The comments about the USSF/CONCACAF/FIFA were to forestall responses (particularly from one certain poster) along the lines of "They'll be forced to when X".
This question at the moment is impossible to answer. You have19 owners who believe what they our doing in regard to pro soccer is just fine. They play in the top league and that is it., end of story. You have a owner in Portland who believes that a women's pro league is more important than enhancing the structure of the MLS. The USSF and the MLS are going to throw millions into women"s soccer when they can have some very established owners, clubs and fan bases in the NASL and USL creating synergy and competition.
No the question isn't hard to answer and investment in a women's league has nothing to do with the original question. If you agree that the owners don't want to do it today, then what would make them want to do it tomorrow? If you can't create a scenario in which they would want to change their current business model, then the answer is that pro/rel will not happen.
An obvious scenario is soccer continuing to grow in popularity, larger tv contracts, more potential investors wanting to be a part of or a shot at the top division, meaning more markets wanting to get involved, and the investment those future investors would potentially make being enough that it's profitable for current owners. Some are acting like the game won't grow, or that MLS will simply keep expanding and expanding. What happens when MLS is done expanding, yet the popularity and growth as well as potential profit keeps increasing, and there's say, eight investors outside of MLS willing to pay tens of millions to back a team? What if NASL keeps growing and 10 years from now the investors want the opportunity to play in the top division? It's not about the current landscape, it's about how the landscape will change as the sport grows, and what happens when the demand from investors for first division soccer is more than a closed-system league allows. That's not the current landscape, obviously, but if the sport grows like we all want it to, it might be at some point.
What is the current business model of the MLS? Obviously the ownership groups would not want there investment to be relegated into the second league. Unfortunately that will not work with me. Big deal right. I am only one person who will not go watch live games because frankly it does not interest me to watch a league that does not open up to all North American players and clubs that could qualify financially if given the opportunity. So let the USSF and MLS collect franchise fees for a new women's league so they can fill the coffers. Making money like that might work in the short term but in the long term, it always fails. So keep enjoying a league that the regular season means so little, as long as you make the playoffs and go watch the W-MLS which will probably play before the men and than you will need to see a doctor (just kidding) for boredom sickness. Pro/rel will give the MLS a huge breath of fresh air, which it desperately needs. Let the USSF worry about the women's pro league, not the MLS owners. The MLS owners need to freshen up the product. Women's soccer is not the answer, with all do respect to the women's game. /
MLS will expand until it is no longer financially beneficial to keep expanding. If there are 8 investors that would increase the value of the league revenues then they would be let in, if they won't help then they won't get in. We already have conferences and unbalanced schedules, they can expand as much as they want as long as expansion benefits the league. If there are lots of strong investment groups in the future we'll have a lot more teams, if there aren't strong investment groups then we won't grow much. The market will decide. But pro/rel doesn't need to be in the equation.
That's just speculation. You have no idea how many teams MLS will ultimately have. You have no idea if 10-15 years down the road MLS would consider a second division. If in 2022 there's eight teams willing to pay 25M each for an expansion fee but not 100M+, it'd be questionable to turn away that kind of money from a potential 2nd division simply because you think it might not help enough. You're missing the point that there will most likely be good money available which could help, but isn't at the future expansion fee level. You're leaving out the inbetween factor and making it either/or. Either you can pay the expansion fee our you're not helping us, when 200M from eight different teams to enter/start a 2nd division might make sense, especially if MLS1 owners get a good size cut.
A few things... 1. MLS is not running a women's league. A few MLS clubs might decide to have a women's team but that is common around the world. The women's league has nothing to do with MLS and pro/rel. 2. We have an open competition that lets any team/play compete against each other to become the national champion. It is called the US Open Cup and no one cares about it. Attendance is weak as is TV viewership and sponsorship. While you may love the idea of open competition, there is no actual evidence that it will be embraced on a massive scale that would actually make the game more popular. 3. In almost every other league in the world, there was an organic growth from amateur clubs and pro/rel set up through the FA. No one paid anything to get into a league, the league wasn't owned by the teams. So pro/rel made total sense. In the US we have a franchise system and a team owned league. So in this league you have to tens of millions of dollars and in return you get a slice of the media/sponsorship contracts. The problem with trying to move away from the franchise model we have is that these owners actually paid to get in which is unlike other leagues. At this point it would be like trying to kick someone out of houses they bought. Now you may love the idea of community clubs growing organically like they did in other countries, but we've had amateur clubs in this country for over 100 years. And despite having years (decades even) without a D1...no club ever really grew like they did in other countries or like other sports in this country. And now with technology, fans can choose to watch clubs anywhere in the world. This makes organic growth of community clubs even less likely. Casual fans won't waste their time supporting some local club when they can just watch Barca on their 50 inch TV. This wasn't the case when teams around the world were formed.
No. I said that the market will decide, this isn't speculation. I have no idea what the market will be for MLS clubs in 10 years, but if the demand is high enough and expanding helps the business of MLS then MLS will expand, if expansion doesn't help the business of MLS then they won't expand. Again, the market decides. MLS will continue to set prices that they feel adds value to the league and if ownership groups are willing to pay that price and build a club that will be valuable to the league then they will be let in, if they can't reach the expansion prices then they won't be let in. I am not claiming how many teams MLS will have I am saying that you can expand and never need to build a lower division. We already have conferences, you could have an East/West with 20 teams each or an American/National League or AFC/NFC type scenario with virtually 2 leagues both in the top division. I agree that if a group of owners wanted to create an MLS2 and offered a lot of cash to MLS, that they might consider it but it would need to be limited pro/rel. For instance the top team in MLS2 gets promoted and at the end of the year in MLS they have to play the winner of MLS2 in order to stay in MLS. No MLS team can be relegated. Now I don't think this scenario would ever happen, but its really the only way I see it becoming a reality. Even at that point I don't think MLS would do it. I think they'd rather just try to find larger investment groups in those 8 markets and build permanent MLS clubs there. I don't think MLS sees value in creating yo-yo expansion clubs. I say that because if they had any interest in it they could have done it. By looking at how much the league is trying to help clubs be established with ownership groups and stadiums, I think MLS is far more focused on creating permanent stable clubs to build long term fan bases. Relegation just hurts that. Remember these are not the best teams in the world and they are expansion teams. I don't think MLS sees value of teams leaving the league and potentially loosing fan interest. If an 'MLS 2' team might add value, I think MLS would rather just focus on finding that 'MLS 2' the kind of investment group that would allow it to be another permanent franchise in MLS.