Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer in the USA' started by Goodsport, Jan 25, 2004.
I've heard recently that there once again are plans for a Salt Lake City SSS. Is that true?
Good question. There's lots of land in the Salt Lake Valley that, in effect has a "Free To Good Home" sign in front of it.
And various levels Utah government have a track record of subsidizing pro sports teams.
Check out the various Utah/Salt Lake City threads on the Expansion and Stadiums boards for more info.
And would it have been better or worse than it is now?
I suppose now that Salt Lake City will have an MLS team next year, that they'll be working at getting an SSS there in a few years.
Wow, I had no idea how the league process began for MLS (and died for its competitors). Granted I was 12 when this report came out, so I think I have an excuse
While League One America's concept of the league was aweful, the name sounds very cool to me.
"MLS" isnt bad, but it attempts to copy MLB. As we've seen in almost everything on this board-- americanizing the sport isnt as popular as "Europeanizing" the sport (at least with bigsoccer folk)...
In the end though, I agree with most of the posters here that MLS was the best way to go; the happy medium of sorts.
Considering that I had already graduated college by the time that MLS began play, now I really feel old.
This is how the MLS SSS situation looks now (late-2004):
CD Chivas USA (don't hold your breath for them to ever build one of their own)
Los Angeles Galaxy
To open in 2005:
To open in 2006:
To open in 2007:
Very close to official announcement (to open in 2006 or 2007):
Currently working on a stadium deal (to try and open in 2006 or 2007):
Real Salt Lake
San Jose Earthquakes
Has a sweetheart deal with current NFL stadium:
Kansas City Wizards (though have there been rumors lately about possible plans for a KC SSS?)
Investor/Operator owns recently-built NFL stadium:
New England Revolution
Is this all ahead of or behind (or exactly at) where MLS had initially expected to be by this point?
League 1 America sounds like a more appropriate plan for an indoor soccer league.
Perhaps future MLS SSS's will include an arena as well, so that MLS can stage indoor football and/or futsal games in the offseason?
Particularly with the proposed rules changes and different colorations of the field.
Frankly, without the APSL folding, there would not have been a USISL.
Didn't the APSL become the A-League in 1995 and merged with the USISL shortly after the end of the 1996 season?
Indeed. The USISL was going along doing it's thing well before the merger. In fact, had the APSL and it's clubs just gone away without a merger, Frank Marcos' circus might have been stronger as it wouldn't have tried to have a nation-wide level.
Would that have been better or worse for soccer in this country in the long run?
Jesus, what an amazing lack of knowledge of history.
The APSL didn't fold. And what became the USISL started in 1986 and went outdoors in 1989.
At the time of the merger in 1996, the APSL had 7 teams and USISL had 34 amateur teams, 48 professional teams and 23 women's teams.
IMO, better, as the USISL had preofessional teams in a lot more markets then they do now, which could have provided stable, professional regional leagues, something we don't have now.
But having teams in more markets doesn't equate to more stable league. If they had stable ownership groups most of those teams would still be around. The country is littered with a lot more failed ASL/WSL/APSL/USISL/USL/A-League franchises then MLS franchises.
Don't forget that MLS had some hand in those franchises failing.
I agree, it was mostly the fact that you can't hardly make money on soccer in this country anyway, and a great many of those owners in the alphabet soups of leagues were underfinanced.
But MLS took the best players away (it sure as hell hurt the indoor game in a big way) and in some cases, took the market away (Colorado Foxes, hello). When there was no D1 soccer in this country, the one-eyed men were kings.
Indeed, but regional leagues would have allowed some the underfinanced that much more of a chance to gain a foothold with lower travel costs, etc.
Isn't that called an open market? I'm pretty sure that's what they taught in my econ classes. But yet some of the clubs in the lower leagues have figured out how to be comeptive and survive.
In the lower leagues, they're competitive and survive because they don't pay the players and because there's a supply of them coming from college every year.
Not paying the players (and the workman's comp costs that come with that) and minimizing your travel costs are the way to survive in soccer in America unless you've got incredibly deep pockets.
The fact the Des Moines Menace survives doesn't invalidate the sheer fact that dozens of other franchises above them have gone under since 1997. MLS had a hand in that...not the only hand, but a hand nonetheless.
I was referring to the teams in USL 1 & 2 and not the PDL. There are some teams there that have figured out how to survive (some better then others). Some of these teams have found a market niche and budget size that their market and owners are able to support. Some of these teams have figured out that they are not the
Back to the main thoughts of the thread. If either the APSL or League One had launched instead of MLS, I don't think we would have a league today. Those teams / leagues were never fully captialized to the level to pull something like this off. And with those teams you really never showed the effort/dollars to build their markets. At the time they were able to attract the best players that didn't go over seas, built the font offices needed to move up to the next level.
Hey thanks a lot guys! I must have opened up a can of worms in remembering League One. Its good to see all the feedback and information. I can't believe the League One concept was so long ago. I've been living abroad for the last four years and have noticed the downtown soccer stadiums so I thought it was kind of cool to have the same type of thing back home. Here in Europe most of the games are either played on Saturday night or on Sunday when all the stores are all closed so it wouldn't make much of a difference where the stadiums are located. They don't have to market soccer here like we have to in the US because the game sells itself. I think Jim Paglia anyway, was the front runner to the SSS concept, so if nothing else came out of it , he deserves credit for that. Too bad he had nothing else to show for it.
I do think after re-reading the ideas, some of the ideas were kind of out there. The MLS could use some of those League One innovations, however. Hey I think the MLS as a rule can use all the help it can get in marketing the sport of soccer.
Q: What if it had been the APSL or League One America instead of MLS?
A: Fans would be doing the same thing they are to MLS: complaining about the quality of play, the differences from soccer in the rest of the world and the lack of adequate television coverage on ESPN.