I think the overabundance of turkey flowing through my veins may be clouding my mind. But it seems to me that the following "points" have been raised, amongst others, in recent posts on this thread. At some point investors in second division teams might want to join MLS--well great, when they can pony up an expansion fee and prove their worth to MLS, let them buy their way in. Otherwise, anyone who invests in a second division team in the USA with the intent of waiting for pro/rel to lift them up is an idiot MLS may or may not be sponsoring teams or a league for women's soccer. I admit I haven't been paying full attention to that. If so good for them. I actually see benefits for both sides to having, at least in the regular season, the women and men play doubleheaders. I cannot see how sponsoring a women's league (or just a few teams) can actually hurt the MLS. They are stable enough to take the risk and women's soccer does have the advantage that the national team can win tournaments. NBC seems to like that sort of thing. (And, possibly to my detriment, I admit that at times I find the women to provide a better brand of soccer than the men at least at the tournament final level.) I really, really, really hope I read it wrong and did not actually read a post implying that Australia and the US have weak soccer programs because they don't have pro/rel. The simple reality is that they both follow multiple sports. Strangely, NZ and India which also do not have soccer has a high profile sport aren't really all that great either. I agree that pro/rel would make the end of the regular season interesting. But I also like playoffs and a stable league. While this thread isn't directly saying it, I fear that once they have pro/rel, they'll redouble their push to end playoffs. What is in it for MLS to have pro/rel? Seriously. If I was an owner in MLS, how would I make more money facing relegation?
This, to me, is the best post on why we shouldn't want pro/rel in MLS. That and the lack of financial incentives for the owners.
Now that I'm done bashing the idea of relegating MLS with some MLS 2 league, let me offer what I Think is the only theoretically realistic path to pro/rel in this country. I will start off by saying that I don't think it will happen, but it is the only way I see it COULD happen. Forget about pro/rel below MLS. It adds no value to MLS owners to relegate themselves when they don't need to. There is a reason why no franchise based league has ever introduced pro/rel in any sport, it just doesn't make financial sense. The only path I see is if you create a league ABOVE MLS that has more money in it than MLS does that MLS would want to join or promote itself to. This way its not about forcing MLS to adopt a new business strategy that they don't want, it is more about creating a more profitable league and then just asking MLS to join. If they accept, then you could have a multi-tier open league with MLS. There is probably 2 paths to this league above MLS either a merger with a rival league or a USSF funded league. The rival league scenario would play out with a handfull of billionaires investing in clubs all over the country. They build stadiums, fan bases, media contracts, and sponsorships. They then approach MLS and ask if they want to merge leagues and negotiate larger contracts and sponsorships that each individual league couldn't do alone. If MLS sees that this merger could mean more money for their owners even with pro/rel then they might do it. In theory it doesn't need to be just a new group of expansion teams. Lets say in some fictional scenario Liga MX came to MLS and asked if they wanted to create a 12 team 'SuperLiga' (yea I know) in which the top 6 from each league play in a kind of north american premier league. And lets say Fox is willing to drop hundreds of millions for this new league's TV rights. And of course lets assume the FA and Concacaf/Fifa is on board. Well MLS might seriously consider a pro/rel scenario like this if it is clear that there is much more money on the table if they adopt pro/rel then if they don't. The other path would be USSF setting up a similar league on their own. They end all contracts with SUM and instead operate those media/sponsorship deals internally. They then go out and sign much larger TV and media contracts than MLS currently has. So they create this new league with huge revenues and ask MLS teams to join (along with any new expansion clubs that meet their criteria). This new USSF could have pro/rel in theory. Like in the rival league scenario, owners would join if they see that going with this new league would allow them larger media/sponsorship contracts than they could currently in MLS. Pro/rel wouldn't be an issue if every team knew that they would make more money in this new league than in their current league. For me, its the only 'realistic' path. I say realistic not to mean that it will happen, but that it COULD happen. Like 1 in million probably, but at least it makes sense. MLS will only abandon their current model if they were presented with a clear opportunity to make more money doing something different. MLS 1 and MLS 2 does not offer any clear opportunities to make MORE money. Maybe you can create some scenario in which MLS 2 franchises contribute to parachute payments, but all you are doing is figuring out ways to cover losses. Business owners are not motivated to change their business model just by covering losses, you need to be able to show how it makes MORE money. And MLS 1 and MLS 2 I think doesn't do that. The only way I see is if you make a league above MLS.
Right, the only way I could see it is also with a league of comparable quality, like the NFL/AFL merger, or NBA/ABA. But, even so, the NFL is 32 teams, without pro/rel. There is room for plenty more soccer in American markets before the first division would even be large enough to consider pro/rel. Even with 40 teams, 2 conferences of 20 works just fine.
Um, what ? I'm not the one saying Garber/et al haven't done a great job. I follow both, what's your point ? I'm not the one saying that pro/rel is the magical end all ... the pro/rel zealots present their arguments in this manner. Just like your second sentence there. How does pro/rel do anything in identifying the "best players" that our current system doesn't do ? Why ? There is zero need for a pro/rel structure in the United States. NONE. All "evidence" purported by those in favor of pro/rel is merely opinion and speculation. There is absolutely nothing proven in a pro/rel set up that exists or is provided that our system doesn't. Why will pro/rel automatically create demand for FC Edmonton tickets ? It won't. There is NOTHING to show that it will. Or, are you saying that Coventry wouldn't even be drawing 12K in the Championship if there wasn't pro/rel ? WTF ? I'll need citations for all of that. Erm, I'm really not sure what your fixation on the Women's League is, because it has dick all to do with the MLS outside of perhaps some MLS clubs also fielding women's teams. The USSF =/= the MLS. If you're confused on that, you shouldn't be commenting on the MLS at all. Garber/et al, are concentrating on making the MLS the best possible league that it can be. That may not be the best league in the world. They're doing this by making smart decisions and ensuring they're creating and growing a league that fits the American sporting landscape. The MLS will never grow to it's potential if it doesn't fit that first. That's a fact, and one you and many others have to come to terms with. Yes, here in America. You know, where the MLS resides. Where there is a completely different sporting concept and culture. Soccer here isn't soccer in Europe or South America. It's soccer in America. Any business that wants to succeed will do so according to how this country and its businesses work. Is that really that difficult of a concept to grasp ? Oh, and the political crap has its own forum. Keep it there ... I really don't want to have to explain to you how me earning money doesn't mean you get a share of it
That seems about right. And I agree, it won't happen. Though it did give me an idea that will make everyone happy! Instead of trying to be like the EPL, MLS should just BUY the EPL and move all 20 teams to the states. It will work because FIFA will be jumping for joy that American finally has a "proper football league" and England will still have the Championship. At the end of every season, the bottom three clubs in the United States Based Premier League (USBPL) will be relegated and sent back to England. The winner of the Championship will cross the pond with one promotion spot and the winner of MLS will get the second spot. The third and final promotion spot will be decided with a six team playoff involving the runners-up from both MLS and the Championship. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN AND WORLDWIDE FOOTBALL FAN WILL LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! American fans get a champion decided without playoffs and can watch the quality of EPL, now USBPL in their backyards MLS will still get to have playoffs and since the USBPL teams will really be English teams, MLS teams can still capture the glory of the CCL. The world's football fandom will now have the quality of the EPL mixed with the awesomeness of AMERICA!!!!! What's not to love!
If I can brush off the sarcasm from that post for a minute, it is sort of ironic what you stated because in the 60s didn't british clubs come here and play as US based clubs? I think Stoke City was like the Cleveland Stokers or something. I think Vancouver had like Reading or something playing there. So in some weird way if your scenario did happen it would be some kind of sick 'full circle' of US club soccer. If you want to just throw out really WILD ideas, if I think a fun idea would be MLS LLC/SUM just buying MK Dons. It is a pretty young club with a nice new stadium and not too far away from London. And each year you send the winner of MLS to replace all the players at this club and change the name each year to whatever MLS name is...'London Fire...London Galaxy...London United...London Whitecaps.' If indeed they can dump enough cash into the club to get it to the EPL, you could have the MLS winner actually 'promoting' to EPL. Imagine the TV contracts you could get with an 'American' EPL team. Because MLS LLC owns all the MLS contracts it would just be about loaning the players from one club over to the English club which is also owned by MLS. Of course it is silly, but I don't know of any rules in which it couldn't happen. Another idea would be that the team could exist as just like some kind of MLS all-star team because I guess the problem with that fantasy is that the MLS team would basically disappear for that time playing in England. Ok back to reality. I have half of a left over turkey to start working on...
If you do not know how pro/rel develops and identifies players, talking about with you is a waist of time. You will never grasp it. You will have to be reborn. You mention the current system, please. Your ignorance is disturbing. Go ask any European owner, player or supporter what the advantages are. Also, ask what the disadvantages are. You are also suggesting that the American system in regard to producing players is on par with the best soccer nations in the world. Your statement is ludicrous an insane which shows you have very little experience in pro soccer other than writing on Big Soccer. I will not even comment on you mentioning Coventry City. Contact Cobi Jones on face book and he will tell you all about Coventry City, SILLY LITTLE FELLOW. In regard to MLS and Women's pro soccer, we will see how important the Women's game becomes to the MLS. Garber has done a good job for a NFL guy. He has gotten the league on stable footing,we think. By the way, save your lectures on soccer in America for your Mom and Dad.
WC 2010 Group C: USA (no pro/rel): 1st England (Birthplace of pro/rel): 2nd WC 2002 Group D: South Korea (no pro/rel at that time): 1st, and eventuall 4th placed finish USA (no pro/rel): 2nd Portugal (pro/rel): 3rd Poland (pro/rel): 4th How again are non pro/rel countries being hurt in identifying and developing players again? The current system that's created the most successful soccer league in this country's history, developing players who have now qualified for 6 straight World Cups (1 as host, 1 before MLS started), and made it out of the group stage 2 of the last 3 times, once to the quarterfinals? That system? No, he's suggesting pro/rel doesn't factor into development of players, not that the U.S. is equal to other countries in the world. Probably not at all, but since MLS as a whole isn't involved, why would they care? If the women's game is important to the Timbers so be it, but that doesn't involve MLS as a whole. I don't need to, they're smarter than you.
Jasonma - your anti-pro-anti-rel arguments are just as silly as the others pro-pro-rel-rel arguments. It's obviously a matter of finances with other factors being ranked from insignificant to worthless.
Oh, did you forget to mention the countries that actually have won World Cups? You mention England, who has won a World Cup. As you stated " the birth place" of pro/rel. So you are suggesting that the MLS is on equal footing as the EPL? Are you also suggesting that the USA has produced better teams and players at the national or club level than Portugal? Poland, go read the history of Polish soccer on the National and club level so you can learn... Overall, your post is very ignorant and lacks foundation.
Why is it, when asked, none of you pro/rel zealots can answer this ? This is exactly why you and many others are scoffed at when you post. Pro/rel doesn't develop players. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary of course .... but you, nor anyone else has done that. Please what ? Here, let's try this: Please, actually attempt to answer the question and provide evidence for your opinion on this. No ? I see the disadvantages of an open system quite out in the open. Portsmouth, Rangers .... pretty big examples yeah ? There's also the endless sea of red tape in European soccer. The advantages are contingent on things that this country doesn't have going for it. The few that aren't, are subjective. LOL, no. If you had any reading comprehension at all .... oh wait, I can stop there because you don't. What's ignorant, ludicrous, and insane is your lack of understanding of how the American system works, how the American sporting culture works, and that it is possible that different countries operate differently in regards to a common thing. WHY NOT SILLY LITTLE POOPIE HEAD ? I gave you an example of a decent sized club in your magical pro/rel system that can't even draw on the level of FC Dallas despite the allure of promotion that gives these clubs all of this support, as you've said. According to your statement these clubs get support at the lower levels simply because there is a chance for promotion. I asked a simple question. Because Coventry can possibly get promoted, they're getting more fans than if they wouldn't have that possibility ... right ? If not, then your statement is just another load of shit. Which, we know it is. Yeah, like I said .... has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure where in the world explosive growth, demand that outweighs supply, consistent investment, and consistent improvement is only "thought" of as stable .... perhaps only the lonely little backwards world you live in ? Only if you agree to keep your idiocy confined to yourself. If not, I can always have my mom come on here and laugh you off of BigSoccer. Not sure when facts became silly ... ... and actually no, it isn't simply finances and then other stuff. It's an entire mode of thinking.
Edmonton's crowds would certainly rise if they were in a promotion battle, because the games would be more important. What Coventry would get in the championship without pro/rel is speculation, but I do believe there's no chance that a promotion-chasing Coventry would draw far more than an equally successful team with no promotion on offer. Examples of leagues being opened up/closed are hard to come by, but one example is in the 86/87 season, when England's 5th tier had promotion (for just the champions) for the first time. Crowds had fallen for 5 of the previous 6 years, yet that season saw a 19% rise overall. The two teams (Barnet & Scarborough) who battled for the title saw crowds rise 151% and 135%. In comparison the rises for the previous winners were Altrincham -8.9%, Enfield 9.8%, Maidstone -26%, Wealdstone 23%, Enfield 21%.
Your lack of reading comprehension is truly stunning. At no point did I suggest that MLS was on a level with Portugal, Poland, or the EPL. What I pointed out is that the USA is developing players that can play with the best those countries have to offer on the biggest stage without pro/rel, so clearly pro/rel isn't a major factor in developing players as you suggest. It's about money, first and foremost. Getting the coaches, staff, and facilities.
I'd like to throw something out there. Why do people believe that pro/rel would help development of players in ways that a closed 'minor league' couldn't. I say this because it seems like the opposite of the argument we always hear against our 'pay to play' youth clubs. Our youth clubs NEED kids to pay fees in order to pay coaches and cover expenses. They do this by winning NOT developing kids. If you win state championships then parents want to take their kids to your club and not another one in a different town. The motivation is always to win and for that teams don't focus on development. The dream we all have is that our pro clubs can become profitable enough to just subsidize that development and allow those clubs to stop worrying about winning and focus on development. I see similarities in handing our development over to a pro/rel system. I think that it is much more beneficial to have a dedicated development club that does not care at all about results or promotion. Barca B is a great example of this. Not only can they not be promoted, it just isn't their concern. Their job is to create players ready for their 1st team. This should be the ultimate goal of our system. Subsidize local youth clubs and assist them in coaching philosophy. Take the best young players and send them into your development clubs (U18, and U23) that play in closed leagues in which the club can focus on giving those young players games and experience and not worried about promoting the club.
That right there, is the trap though of the differences in how our sporting cultures think. How would playing for promotion be any more important than playing for a championship ... in regards to the way of thinking over here ? I mean there is quite literally a split crowd on which one is more important, exciting, or what have you. While I understand the significance of it, I certainly don't feel that the Scorpions fighting for promotion to the MLS would be any more important than them fighting for the NASL Championship. This of course, is do to the fact that we both know that promotion isn't all cakes and pies like many would try to make others believe. 100% agree, and that's essentially the point that most others don't get. Examples of leagues being opened up/closed are hard to come by, but one example is in the 86/87 season, when England's 5th tier had promotion (for just the champions) for the first time. Crowds had fallen for 5 of the previous 6 years, yet that season saw a 19% rise overall. The two teams (Barnet & Scarborough) who battled for the title saw crowds rise 151% and 135%. In comparison the rises for the previous winners were Altrincham -8.9%, Enfield 9.8%, Maidstone -26%, Wealdstone 23%, Enfield 21%.[/quote] That sample size is a bit too small to be significant. I mean, the actual size of those crowds.
Finances are a distant third to the number one factor: Soccer isn't popular enough to support professional soccer in a 7 tier pyramid in the US. There is no second factor. Deal with that, dildolicker.
Lets throw out another idea. The min. amount of teams a league can have is 8, and right now we have 19 clubs with 10 making the playoffs. So lets just change the name of MLS playoffs to MLS Premier. So instead of a short cup, MLS decided to instead allow for the top teams to move into a premier league and the bottom 9 stays in MLS. So we have an 'MLS 1' and 'MLS 2' with pro/rel with our current teams. Does this make current euro or mexican league fans start watching MLS? Does this increase investment, salaries, quality of play, or quality of development? Does pro/rel ALONE do any of this if our MLS Cup just became a top league? I think the answer is quite clearly no. What pro/rel becomes is a code word for all this OTHER stuff we all would want to happen....More teams, more investment, more quality of play, more excitement, and better youth development. But I have just demonstrated that pro/rel itself doesn't do any of those things. So the question becomes...'can we accomplish those things in our current system'. Personally I don't see why not.
On academy teams? After a certain age it depends on the country. Some leagues have reserve leagues while others have b-teams that play in lower divisions.
Or maybe some of us aren't that concerned with development. Maybe we are content to let development take as long as it needs. After all, some of our best (imho) men's team players are playing in leagues that have pro/rel. Maybe we just want our communities to have a shot at the big leagues through the organic growth of soccer in the U.S.