Probably one or the other (although an exception might be made here as only having to pay 16 (or 8 if they just want to have the bare minimum gameday roster) players may be what keeps the Blues afloat).
If everyone has to have an affiliate (with affiliate-less MLS sides fielding a reserve team), my guess is the number of teams (including reserve teams), would exactly mirror the number of MLS franchises.
In 1999 they the USL had 29 clubs, playing as the A-League. In 2013 what is it 12 0r 13? In 2014 who knows.
Not enough of one. You know where Victoria traveled last year, right? Portland, Seattle, Seattle, Abbotsford, Everett, Bremerton, Abbotsford and Vancouver. That's it. That's the list. How do you get more regional than that, exactly? Do you know how the PDL works? So they can go from a situation where: 1 - They pay for no players; 2 - They don't have to travel outside of the Pacific Northwest; and 3 - They only have eight road games at all To a situation where: 1 - They pay for 15-18 players; 2 - They have to travel farther than Portland, Oregon 3 - They have 12-14 road games. That's not an incentive Victoria, BC has a population of 80,000 people. They're simply not going to be able to draw enough people to make a fully professional team work, even with five players (<1/3 of the roster) subsidized. Yes, we have seen PDL teams go pro in the past. It hasn't gone well. Dayton's pro team exists solely as an ornament for its academy program. They can't win and can't draw. The Cincinnati Riverhawks, Calgary Storm and New York Freedoms all also moved up from the amateur ranks to the pros. It didn't go well for any of them.
And if you do good work in the community, too, screw you, because Anonymous Internet Guy operates under the delusion that sport is pure for some reason. I don't believe the Eagles do a lot of proselytizing. I do know they do a lot of good work in Charlotte. I wouldn't wish them failure just because I "don't agree" with their beliefs or their way of life.
The only team I could see trying to jump into the USL-Pro would be the Texas Dutch Lions so their academy could claim affiliations with three pro sides (Crew, Dynamo, and Twente). The financial illogic isn't as much of an impediment here as the Dutch Lions' marketing model seems to be spending money on low-performing D3 teams like it was printed by Parker Brothers rather than the Bureau of Printing & Engraving.
Austin's PDL team has supposedly talked about going pro. But they're doing it slowly and building an infrastructure for it. In that case, if you're already planning it, having someone take five salaries (etc.) off your books would be a nice thing to have. And Houston (or San Antonio, at some point) having an affiliate in Austin makes a lot of sense. But if you're a PDL team and right now you're operating on, let's say, a $100,000 budget and you'll have to ramp up your budget 10 fold to follow USSF pro standards (the ones that exist for all pro leagues, not the D2 specific ones) and pay for players and play more road games and travel farther, an MLS team taking five salaries off your books isn't enough of an incentive to take someone who's fine in the PDL and have them go fully professional.
Fresno County is also the second-poorest good-sized metro area in the country. Huge poverty there. There probably are some PDL teams that could go pro (though there's no guarantee they'd be successful or that they'd draw more or could charge more), but, as you mention, the economic realities keep some of them from doing so. The limited sample of PDL teams that have gone pro isn't very encouraging. You have to ask yourself, if you run a PDL team and you're doing well...why would you put yourself in a situation where your expenses would go up and you're not guaranteed that your revenue would increase enough to make it worthwhile? Because anonymous people online think you owe it to them to play at the highest level possible?
The question: Can you charge enough of a premium for tickets to a "pro" game to cover the cost of salaries? The answer: seems to be no, based on past history What it would take to really change the paradigm would be a baseball-style farm system where the parent club covers all the salaries (MLS does not have nearly enough $ for this right now) coupled with a regional league setup (to reduce travel costs to near-PDL levels).
Ticket prices aren't set by what the seller needs to break even. Like anything else, they're set at what the seller believes the market will bear. Now, if you add value and create a product and an experience that's better than the one people have paid $8 for, can you charge $12? Maybe. But you can't just move up, pump up your expenses and then tell the market, "You're going to have to pay for this added expense now." Also needed: soccer as a spectator sport to be as popular (especially at the lower levels) as baseball is as a sportainment option.
Well, you can do it, but you need added investment. Most people who invest in and operate PDL teams have fewer resources than necessary. If you have the money, surely, you can do it. But if you count on more money coming in because you've moved up a level, history shows us that doesn't always happen.
So if this happens, I wonder if the affiliations will be 1:1 or if usl pro teams can affiliate with multiple MLS sides... seeing as how there are more MLS sides than USL Pro teams. Orlando - Seems to me Orlando should opt out of this if they are serious about MLS. Maybe move to NASL as others have suggested, or not participate if that is an option. Great for USL but not aligned with their long term goals Antigua - They are a different type of setup and wouldn't be likely to participate Harrisburg - They and Philadelphia already have a relationship so it would make sense for that to continue. New York or DC would be other options. The Redskins do their preseason near Harrisburg, and the AA baseball team is a Nats affiliate Rochester - Toronto, Montreal, New England or New York make sense Pittsburgh - Columbus, Toronto Dayton - Columbus, Chicago Charlotte - DC, Houston Richmond - DC Wilmington - DC, Houston Los Angeles Blues - Galaxy, Chivas are the obvious options Charleston - DC, Houston Tampa Flames - Houston, Dallas, Kansas City Phoenix - Chivas, Galaxy, Colorado, Salt Lake, Dallas, Houston Sacramento - San Jose, Portland, Seattle Potential others? Montreal had talked about a Quebec City feeder team at one point right? Vancouver had the same about Victoria Eugene has been mentioned, would be a good fit for Portland Austin comeback as an affiliate for Dallas or Houston? Maybe St. Louis Lions move up and affiliate with KC? San Diego? Might make sense to allow USL teams to affiliate with more than one MLS team in the short run rather than force another USL franchise into existence, unless the MLS club is going to buy a franchise themselves which sounds like is on the table. Would be nice if those were located in non-MLS markets like the baseball minor leagues, to spread interest in the sport. This is a nice development and will it will be fun to see if/how it shakes out.
No I understand how it works and I mentioned Victoria as they were the ones mentioned above in the article. As you pointed out, there is teams like Austin (I know Tucson and Baltimore are 2 others off the top of my head) who have higher aspirations and now the costs are suddenly reduced by 5 players and possibly less travel
Going from the PDL to the pro level - even if someone else pays for five of your players - increases your costs. Even if some subsidization makes the cost of playing professionally slightly less than you would have planned for, it's still a substantial investment increase. "Possibly less travel?" I just showed you what PDL travel is like. How is playing more games against more opponents farther away from how you are somehow "less travel?" PDL teams play 16 games. USL Pro teams play 24 games now. You don't know how it works. You've displayed that you don't know how it works. Victoria would have a very, very hard time having a fully professional team (even though they draw pretty well for a PDL team) because they play in a very small city and would have to substantially up their investment to play professionally. Even if MLS were to pay for five Victoria players, there would still be at least 13 to 18 players they'd have to pay for themselves.
No I do understand. The problem is (as usual) you don't. You keep going off on this USL Pro v PDL thing?? I clearly meant more incentive to play in USL Pro WITH affiliation than without, not more incentive to play in USL Pro than PDL? I'm aware of the huge cost differences And I mentioned Antigua in terms of travel in my first post so was wondering what you were even talking about with your PDL travel stats. I clearly meant ALL USL Pro teams could have possibly less travel with the new teams than without. More teams could mean regionalisation? So to explain more clearly so you actually understand this time. I own a random PDL club. I want to move up. My business plan had 21 players and trips to Antigua. Suddenly there's 5 less players to pay for and possibly less travel. So the cost of USL Pro 2013 is cheaper than USL Pro 2012.
I'll be damned if its the latter two, as would most people from Sacramento. Portland and Seattle are fine cities which I've enjoyed on multiple occasions, but to be affiliated with the Timbers or Sounders would be sad. The Quakes are NorCal's team and Sac is in their market. We get Quakes games broadcast on TV here. It's gotta be Quakes or nothing!
The Quakes have loaned to Orlando City more than once; doesn't mean that would make sense as a partnership.
That's fine and all, but it doesn't make sense financially, as a brand, nor for players themselves. In the end, it's not going to be up to each team to decide who they want to partner with, it will be the league deciding for them.