Also I have to add I wonder how many Seattle fans were into Seattle when they were in D2? That's why most MLS fans are spoiled and they don't want pro/rel because: 1. they are posers and only follow the team when they win and when they are in top-flight. 2. they are scared that their team isn't really that good.
I ask that you all proceed with extra caution from now on, because there's an overload of stupid in this thread.
The model for the lower divisions of soccer in the US is much more likely to end up like minor league baseball than the European pro/rel setup. One day, MLS teams will have enough money to use lower division teams to develop players. This could happen through outright buying lower division teams, loaning them players at no cost to the lower division teams, or a combination of the two. Eventually, I think we'll also start seeing more and more college teams playing in the lower divisions.
Juvenile insults aside, the reason most fans in the US wouldn't follow their team if it got demoted is because, in most markets, we have other top-tier sports options. The US is not a sports monoculture- soccer is not the only game in town. If DC United got relegated, I'd spend more time and money on the Capitals and Nationals. In a pro/rel system, somebody has to get relegated every year. In a league with as much parity as MLS, at least half the league every year would be a couple of injuries and some bad luck away from being relegated.
So if DC United got relegated you would rather go watch hockey and baseball than live soccer...Wow just wow. and another thing after the call yesterday for the playoff game, MLS needs instant replay and/or better ref's. One bad call/no call and the game is over.
If the Earthquakes were relegated from MLS, I'm not going to riot in the streets. I'll probably use the money I would've used on Quakes tickets to attend more Giants or Warriors games. I'm not that excited to see the Rowdies or Stars. I agree on needing better refs. That's more of a priority than installing pro/rel or changing the schedule.
Small Towns don't have alot of people. You have to have critical mass for the volumes of people to be your customers. There's a reason why pro sports teams are in large cities and not in small towns.
What's so surprising about that? Like most sports fans in this country, I follow several sports. Given a hypothetical situation of a relegated DC United versus a Nationals team in the hunt for the World Series, it's a pretty easy choice. I don't have unlimited time and money, and I'm not going to waste them on a minor league product. American sports fans are in the enviable position of not having to settle for an inferior product. I do agree with you on the referee and instant replay issues.
if we dont have relegation, that means most states will never have a soccer team in the majors? suck.
Plenty of states are too small to support a top-tier team in any sport. Nothing against Montana, I'm sure it's a lovely state. But, it's unrealistic to expect Cheyenne FC to be competitive in the top tier of American soccer. In any event, isn't it more important that teams be located where the bulk of people live, rather than based on arbitrary lines on a map?
Las Vegas? What a great pro sports market. Must be why every other pro league in the US is there. Oh wait... Same goes for Alabama. Where the hell are you going to put a team in Alabama? As for Georgia, it's likely only a matter of time before you see a team in Atlanta. Same goes for Arizona.
Hey, you're the one who complained about most states never getting an MLS team. I'm just pointing out that there's a pretty good reason why a number of states simply don't meet the requirements to support a major league team. Even if you Instituted pro/rel, the hypothetical Billings Wanderers or Juneau FC wouldn't be competitive with existing MLS teams, any more than small-market teams in England can compete with Arsenal. And, again, this isn't about putting teams in the majority of states. Like other sports leagues in this country, MLS is more concerned with expanding into markets where people actually live (and where there's a demand fort a team) Anyway, people in places like Montana and Alaska don't expect the big leagues to come to town. They support high school and college teams locally, and regional teams (teams like the Packers draw fans from all over the Upper Midwest) in the big leagues. If being close to a major league team is important to you, you don't live in Boise or Anchorage. As for the other places you mentioned, they may or may not be viable expansion markets for MLS. Florida, Georgia and probably Arizona are pretty good bets. Alabama and Vegas less so.
But Everton won the league a couple of times in the Eighties (when Liverpool were completely dominant) how on earth do you 'know' they won't win it again sometime? People who have only known soccer for the last 10 years 'assume' that the status quo will always be as it is now, things DO change over time, Huddersfield Town, Wolves, Leeds have been clubs that were once considered almost unbeatable at different periods in history, Nottingham Forest were once the 'kings' of Europe (they have since fallen at one point to the 3rd tier of English football). In 20 years time who knows which club will be dominant in the English league - dont be suprised if it is no longer Manchester United!
As a Florida native, Florida is a terrible state for pro sports franchises. Everyone here is from somewhere else, so they support the team from back home. Of course, this is where soccer could be different as most people don't already support a team in the US. As someone who lives too far from Orlando and Tampa, it's pretty hard to support a USL/NASL team since there is zero TV coverage. That would obviously change if one of them got bumped up to MLS. That said, I feel that ATL may deserve a top flight team more than FL. MLS tried FL twice and got burned for it. Of course, that was a long time ago, but when the Bucs, Dolphins, Marlins and just about every other FL franchise but the Heat aren't doing so hot, I don't think MLS will take another chance on FL in the near future.
I won't dismiss your argument out of hand, but I think you're wrong to compare now to decades ago. The amount of money in pro soccer simply dwarfs that of previous eras, and with the globalization of the big leagues, big clubs, and competitions such as the Champions League, the situation is far less fluid than it used to be. Manchester United is now a global brand worth billions of dollars. Preston North End--not so much. I certainly would never say that Everton will never win a league title again--but if it happens it will be because somebody with a lot of money bought them, like what you see with Man City, PSG, QPR (not going so well right now but still), etc. What I cannot imagine is Manchester United going away as long as the Premiership is around. It's become too big and too financially lucrative to think it will fade away from relevance like some of the other clubs you mention.
Birmingham is the biggest radio market in Alabama (I have radio market sizes memorized but not TV market sizes) and hosted a WCQ in 2005. I wish this wasn't the case, but here's an example of how promotion and relegation could be bad for soccer here. Take Big Market Club A and Small Market Club B, with A averaging 20,000 attendance in MLS and B averaging 5,000 attendance in the NASL. Let's says A gets relegated to the NASL and has their attendance fall to 10,000 while B gets promoted to MLS and has their attendance rise to 8,000 (their stadium might not even hold the 20,000 people that A's stadium averaged while A was in MLS). The combined attendance of the two clubs has dropped from 25,000 to 18,000 which is down 28%. Of course the numbers are hypothetical but even if the drop was 10% it would still be a decrease in attendance as a result of the club's changing levels. Both New York (worst in MLS in 2009) and Los Angeles (tied for the fewest points in 2008) have been in positions in the last five years that would have been relegated if there was relegation.