Will the NASL Ever Compete head to head with MLS?

Cartels compared with high school schooling? Unless there is some underground economist who is now comparing high school schooling and cartels, how can such a comparison be anything but absurdist or humor related.

It's not necessarily funny but it can't possibly be seen as serious. Also using DCU1996 to back any point makes your point invalid.

 

The only way we will see head-to-head comparison is in USOC.

 

Canadian Championship also.

 

Apparently that doesn't count because it takes place early in the NASL season.

 

I will rephrase that my team will play in USOC, 1 NASL team will play in Canadian Championship.

 

And the USOC counts, except when it doesn't.

 

And the thread has gone from a silly discussion of whether one league will ever be on the same playing level as another league to an even sillier statement of fact that teams from one league will play teams from the other league in competitive games.

 

I agree. Look at the way minor league baseball is set up. It is primarily regional leagues. Sure the PCL is pretty far-reaching now, but it is something of an anomaly in the minors. The rest of the leagues still have a fairly small footprint.
You could also look at NCAA DII & DIII athletic conferences. They tend to be geographically arranged to a regional subsection, or even a single state. Heck, until around 1990 or so, even DI conferences were regionally contained.
If baseball and the bulk of the NCAA cannot break from regional leagues, then why do we (as soccer fans) expect that D2 & D3 soccer can? The former have much more in terms of fan base, history, and stability than the latter.
Look at the PDL. It is really nothing more than an umbrella for several regional leagues. And it is the most profitable division that USL has ever had. And it is still more profitable and stable than NASL.

And that's the way it should be. I lovingly support a PDL team for Christ's sake. Would I love DM to be in MLS? Absolutely. Would I love the Menace in NASL? Absolutely. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter because I have live, professionally run soccer in my community. Their league/division means shit in the grand scheme of things.

 

Re: Will the NASL Ever Compete head to head with MSL?

It's called competition.

 

Re: Will the NASL Ever Compete head to head with MSL?

A great Milutinovic quote re: America (and he'd say the same to Canada) about 20 years when asked to study American soccer. Opens his speech with all the big wigs from USSF etc present by saying "None of you know what you are doing."

This is exactly what comes to mind when you suggest MLS needs a direct competitor. Does EPL, La Liga, Serie A need a direct competitor? Remove head from...sand.

 

Re: Will the NASL Ever Compete head to head with MSL?

Clubs in EPL, La Liga, Serie A all compete to survive in EPL. Clubs compete directly each other there. They have integrated system so that clubs in D1 could be in D2 next year, and vice versa.

In US leagues are totally separate, so more direct competitions among leagues.

 

When you have two totally seperate independent leagues, how do you even avoid competition?

 

You could do that by providing entertainment in your area. I would have no problem with a stable d2 or d3 team in my area. With the fact that now MLS competes in the USOC (something the original NASL never did) d2 and d3 teams have a chance every year to at least measure themselves against the higher level leagues.

You will only ever have promotion/relegation if MLS deems it so. I can see the MLS getting too large and calving a div 2.

If people insist on a balanced schedule for MLS (H and A versus every other team) and MLS goes with this, I think 20 would be their limit.

 

Because one league is the top league (D1 or major league) and the other other is a lesser league (D2 or minor league). As noted in several places throughout this thread, two top level major leagues cannot co-exist in this country. Period. In every case, the newer, usually lesser league has disappeared in some fashion. Sure a few have merged (American & National in both baseball and football), but most have more or less died out with only a few teams making it to the more established league (WHA->NHL, ABA->NBA). Many pretenders and upstarts have become nothing more than a footnote, or at best cautionary tale (IHL, USFL, XFL, CFL-US).
Why anyone on this forum thinks that soccer can achieve (two competing major leagues and/or the newer league bypass the original) what the four more popular sports have not is beyond me. Seriously, stop and think about how the world actually works. Money talks and bullshit walks. MLS has money. MLS has two television contracts. MLS has built real history. MLS is gaining recognition internationally. MLS has a growing fanbase. NASL has none of these things (you cannot purchase history).
Look, I love soccer, but I know that it is not going to be passing up NFL or MLB anytime soon for fan dollars (in the US). No matter how much the league grows, no matter what ratings EPL gets on ESPN, no matter how many new soccer fans immigrate to the US, it will be a long time before the game really approaches the numbers those leagues are pulling in (or even NCAA football). Those leagues - MLB in particular - have set the standard for American sports. NBA and NHL emulate MLB's set up and have adopted similar minor league structures. Mark my word, soccer will have a similar set up eventually.
And you know what? It will work better than the current mess. Minor league teams have relatively strong, dedicated fanbases. They know their place and they support their teams. By extension, they support their major league affiliates as a result. They understand something that people like you do not: their cities cannot support a top level franchise, definitely not any better than, say, New York. I say this as a multi-sports fan in a perpetual minor league city.
On a related subject, none of the Big Four nor the NCAA have a system of pro/rel because they are money driven. In this country at least, so is soccer. That is reality. Could it change someday? Sure, but it's probably less likely than a permanent European super league featuring the top drawing clubs from across the continent in emulation of the NFL. If the European leagues launched in 1996 instead of prior to 1900, how many would have pro/rel, realistically? How many owners would vote for such a concept?

I'm not sure what people would have enough sway that their insistence on a balanced schedule could persuade MLS to stop expansion at 20. I really do not think the average sports fan - hell, the average MLS fan - gives a shit as long as it makes sense somehow. Look at the NFL as solid proof. The schedule makes absolutely no sense outside of the division level, yet the league is the top in the country. The NBA, NHL, and MLB also put an emphasis on divisional play. In all of the Big Four, you play your divisional rivals more than anybody else because it determines playoff spots. With MLS having a playoff system (let's be honest, it's not going anywhere), it only makes sense to follow suit.
I would guess that expansion will continue as long as the market allows it and/or until the league reaches 30-32, or whatever the standard will be for the Big Four in the near future. At that point we'll see a true division/conference structure with two games against each teams in the division and one game against the others. It's the American way...

 

D1 D2 distinction is only on paper.

What MLS is different from other top leagues is that its not the top league for the sport. Neutral fans tune to ManU, Barca, Chelsea, BM, RM, Liverpool, Milans, etc.... rather than random MLS matches.

So MLS is in the same position as NASL in 'providing entertainment in your area' especially when MLS is parity driven.

Obviously NASL clubs should be smart in choosing locations.

I would like to see 24 clubs in MLS, and strong D2 clubs build up.

 

Yeah, paper being asset reports, payroll documents, ticket sales ledgers, player contracts, FIFA & USSF documents, and most importantly television contracts...

MLS may not be the top league for the sport internationally, but it is domestically. That distinction is important to consider because MLS teams are getting more fans - sports fans - than most think.
Sure people are tuning in to the big European teams in higher numbers than they are MLS games and I doubt that will change anytime soon. There are several reasons for this ranging from actual European roots to Eurosnobbery, with many points in between. One thing that might be going on - something that nobody is taking into consideration in these comparisons - is the detachment that most American soccer fans have with their European club of choice. Because the average fan has no real connection with Manchester United, he has no guilt watching Chelsea vs Arsenal because he knows he's getting great soccer. He'll probably watch any top match up from any European league for the same reason. There is no real emotional investment.
Now let's pretend this hypothetical Man U fan is from Boston. Being a Bostonian, he's a real local sports guy. His house is littered with debris featuring the Celtics, Sox, Bruins, and Pats. Being a soccer fan, he follows the Revolution - and he follows them as hard as the city's other teams. He's a season ticket holder and he watches every away game. Hell, the guy probably switched to United Healthcare coverage in support of the Revs (that's how Bostonians roll). Such a dedicated hardcore fan obviously has an emotional attachment to his team.
Which is why he won't watch the stinkin' Red Bulls, the freakin' Union, or those bastards in DC. Real fans - emotionally invested fans - support their team, not the league.
This is pretty much true across the board, not only in American sports, but in Europe as well. Do you really think a die hard Man U fan is tuning in to watch Chelsea every chance he gets? Absolutely not. Sure he may catch a game or two - especially if it's outcome impacts Man U - but more often than not he'll do something else.
The point is that comparing American viewership of the top teams in Europe against the MLS is stupid. You're talking about different types of fans, or at the very least different fan mentalities. I will watch any EPL on Saturday morning (it seems like that or infomercials), but usually will only watch the MLS teams near me. I'll watch CCL games to root for MLS as the American teams, but I ignore those teams all season long. I would wager that at least 75% of the MLS fan base (probably lower on Big Soccer) is similar.
Oh, and that same 75% would prefer to have a major league without any of that pro/rel bullshit.

 

Thanks!! exactly my point!!
If I'm a soccer fan in Rochester, I would watch Rochester in person and on TV.
Then, all those other great soccer on TV. Why would I ever bother to watch... uh.. say... NER vs RSL.

I'm a soccer fan so 1. I watch and support my local club. 2. I'm interested in watching the top level soccer world wide.

MLS and NASL on the same boat.

 

I get and more or less agree with you. However, I want to stress again that MLS is the top domestic league (as in the one on TV). As such, teams will get fans, but the league won't.
Because we have a tradition of having a limited number of major league markets (around 30-32 per league!), fans have become accustomed to latching onto teams removed from their cities. This is especially true in markets that realize that they are not a major league city. Using your city as example: Rochester does not have an NFL team. The NFL is not ignored and most fans probably do not make it a point to watch every game that's on (unless they're fantasy football freaks). I would assume that most are Bills fans or possibly Jets or Giants fans. The bulk of these fans most likely follow the team with strong passion similar to an Arsenal fan in London rather than general interest like an Arsenal fan in, say, Rochester. They support the team, but not the league.
Ok, so there is no viable lower tier for football. Fine. Let's carry it over to hockey. Rochester has the Americans, but I'd wager that 90% of their fans are Sabres fans - even before the NHL club bought the Amerks. What's this? Fans cheering for teams at different levels with the same passion? Of course! It's how things work here.
I live in Des Moines. The closest major league cities are 3 hours away in Kansas City, 3 hours away in Minneapolis, or 6 hours away in Chicago, Milwaukee (& Green Bay), and St. Louis. In our market, teams from these cities represent our home team. All have strong, passionate fan bases here. The Vikings, Bears, Packers, and Chiefs all have nearly equal fanbases, with the Rams being the odd ones out. The Royals, Cardinals, Cubs, White Sox, and Twins all have nearly equal fan bases, with the Brewers being the odd ducks.
What is really interesting here is that our minor league team is affiliated with the Cubs. Yet die hard fans of the other "home teams" - guys that watch every game and make multiple road trips - turn out in big numbers to support the I-Cubs. Why? Because it is the minor league mentality. We know that we are not a major league city, yet we long to have a top level team to call our own - a team that we can follow in the media. We want a real team to identify with. A team with marquee players and whose merchandise we can purchase to show our support. We want a team that allows us to identify with a nationally recognized group comprised of like minded individuals.
I love my Des Moines Menace (PDL). But I've followed the Fire with nearly the same passion.* I've every Fire game possible since rediscovering soccer over a decade ago. I am six hours removed from Chicago. I have no real reason to support the team - I already support my home side! And I know MLS is not as good as EPL, yet I've watched more Fire games than Man U games - made it a point to not miss Fire games. Why? Chicago is my home side because I live in a market that will never be a major league market. And that my friend, is how most minor league markets work.
Simply put: minor league markets identify with nearby major league markets.

No. It's all about the money. The concept of major and minor leagues is directly tied into money. MLS is not on the same boat as NASL because of money (& exposure).
I would guess that if some sort of affiliation system arose between MLS and lower tier teams (akin to baseball), we would see drastic increases in support at all levels. Knowing that you are watching future starts - guys contracting with the majors - is part of the appeal of minor league sports. Call ups are like seeing your son grow up.

*Because of logistics, I've been trying to convert to a Sporting KC fan (the rebrand was a good excuse), but it's hard to broke those ties. Plus I don't support any KC teams anyway. Now if Minnesota gets a team - especially if they wear purple & gold - that will be a different story!

 

Some good points aetraxx. And I think you're hitting on something (maybe unintentionally) that is part of why these discussions keep coming up from time to time. MLS is still not close to being in league with the big 4. Not only can you see it in the tv deals (glad for MLS on their new one, but comparitively speaking it's peanuts), but its still incredibly obvious with the average sports fan population. MLS still doesn't hit the radar of most casual sports fans.

I think that's the point DCUwhatever was trying to cling to, although not in a very coherent way. From the casual sports fan perspective, MLS matches don't really register much higher in importance then a local team at a lower level would. TV makes a difference of course, but from the point of view of your Boston fan example, not a whole heck of a lot. The level of cable or satellite package you have to buy to get Fox Soccer is certainly far more expensive in a year than season tickets to a D2 or D3 club.

If the original NASL had found a way to capture and prolong the initial rabid interest their league garnered, and parlayed it into a long term plan that was sustainable rather than the stupid haphazard model they tried to make up on the fly, the landscape of pro sports in this country might be very different. It hasn't really been that much longer than the birth of the original NASL that the NFL as we know it today (post-merger) has been in existence. And I know that since this is a soccer forum some will argue with me, but I defy anyone to prove to me that Steeler fans, Bears fans, or Packers fans are any less loyal, committed, intense, and passionate about their teams as club soccer giants around the globe that have existed for decades longer in their current form more or less. Time certainly helps build a sustainable, passionate, all-weather fanbase, but it's not required in huge blocks like some seem to think. Hell, someone try to tell me that gameday in Portland is something to scoff at compared to one anywhere else in the world. And this is Portland's inaugural season in D1!

Anyway, at the end of the day the initial intention of this thread was stupid. NASL is way too far behind MLS in terms of teams, investors, and infrastructure to ever catch up and compete with them, if that was even their intention. From all that I've heard since the TOA breakaway, I've never once gotten the feeling they had any aspirations of doing so. Finding a way to connect with MLS somehow, sure, and why not? If Vancouver and Montreal can get permission to field reserve teams in NASL, and they're willing to spend the money to do it, why not? Seems like a win/win for me if it fits into their budget. Develop ties with MLS clubs for interchange of players, that too. Someday in the far-flung dream-like future, entertain the possibility of pro/rel? Not likely, but why not if a miracle came along? One thing I have to disagree with you on though aetraxx is your statement about 75% of soccer fans not wanting pro/rel. I think lots wouldn't mind it, but a large enough portion of us recognize how incompatible it would be with the system that has developed to this point, that we don't spend time thinking about it or wishing for it. Of course you'll always have your group of those insisting MLS has to have it, but they're easy to ignore as not being capable of recognizing the reality of how things are, despite what you may or may not want.

 

That may be the funniest thing you have ever posted.

 

well.. sounds like what you are saying is basically same for the ManU, Barca, Chelsea, etc fans in US coming out close to 100k when they visit.

 

He was saying Eurosnobs in America have little attachment to the team they follow so they'll tune into the EPL as a whole more. While MLS fans tend to only follow their team and not tune into MLS games that don't include their team. A NY Yankee fan is going to watch the Yankees and is not sitting there watching ESPN's national broadcast of the Red vs. the Cardinals in any large numbers. But some poser in New York with his Chelsea jersey, will watch Arsenal vs. Man U or any EPL or big European game. Next year he might think bowling is cool and forget all about Chelsea and the EPL. So his point is comparing American viewership of EPL teams to MLS viewership is stupid.

Unfortunately you don't seem to get that European soccer is a small niche in this country. Just as MLS is right now. EPL ratings compared to actual American sporting events are very low. ESPN and American networks have no say or influence with these leagues. They have limited commercial appeal since they broadcast the games in less than ideal time slots. It's not ours and never will be. MLS, as our own domestic top league, has a huge built in advantage for obvious reasons. It is ours and works with our networks. There is a reason NBC wanted it.

A perfect example for MLS is the Bundesliga which does not have the glamor teams of the EPL and La Liga. But it is the best supported major soccer league is the world. Germans aren't getting Real, Barca, Man U, City, or Chelsea, but what they get in a more cost controlled league is good enough and far better on average than what you see play in the EPL, La Liga, and Serie A. As long as MLS continues to grow, finding fans will never be a problem.

MLS is already supported by many American fans and that will only continue as the league improves. It would be one thing if MLS teams were spending small fortunes on players and no one was showing up, Honestly, the American Eurosnob is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Far more important is winning the respect of the Mexican-American fan. Which results in the CCL are slowly doing.

I will never understand why hardcore pro/rel zealots like yourself and Dennis Justice never bother to learn more about the level under MLS before you make your crazy proclamations.

Then you might understand why people who do follow NASL and the minor leagues laugh when you say it competes with MLS. Or that pro/rel should be forced om MLS immediately with NASL teams being promoted up and MLS teams winding up in NASL. Right now there is nothing to be promoted to and from.

Do you have any clue about how healthy the NASL is? The NASL is in no position to compete with anything. Right now it is just trying to survive. Not easy given the chaotic history of minor league soccer. it was only "provisionally" sanctioned as D2. It could easily lose its D2 sanctioning new year. Have you looked at the NASL's attendance? Do you know the financial health of the clubs and their ownership? Do you know about Traffic propping up a number of teams? Do you have any clue about the level of play? How many NASL games have you watched? Does it have a television contract? How much media coverage does it get? How many team are in good stadium situations? What is the average budget for the clubs? Do teams rely on tickets sales or is there sponsorship involved? These are all questions you should look into before saying silly things equating D1 and D2.

Again, why on earth do you think a D2 league, which will lose its top team next year and barely draws around 3,000 a game, is competing with MLS? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

And yes, this thread, which was not the best to begin with, has run its course.

 

The NFL actually has a very fair schedule for the number of teams involved.

1. Each NFL Team plays home and home with each divisional opponent. 6 games
2. You play each team in a division of your Conference (divisions rotate so that you are assured of playing each conference opponent once home and once away every 6 years. 4 games per year.
3. You play the teams in the other two divisions of your conference (one at home and one away) who finished the prior year in the same position as your team. e.g. If you finished 2nd in your division last year you play 2 second place teams. 2 games
4. You play every team from a division in the other conference. (divisions rotate so that you are assured of playing each non-conference opponent once home and once away every 8 years. 4 games per year.

That totals 16 games and is why NFL teams know who they'll be playing next year the day the season ends.