USL-1 rebranding? Competing with MLS?

[VioletCrown]

Just saw this post (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14872557&postcount=103):

Also the owners are planning on relaunching USL-1 next year with a much bigger commitment from Nike (Nike bought Umbro who owns majority of USL). They are most likely rebranding the league with a new name with the intention of competing head to head with MLS. They say they have big plans with big money to take USL to the next level. This all comes from reliable sources.

I figured I'd post here to see what y'all think, what with Austin joining the league next year.

I'd be especially interested in Phil's point of view.

Keep in mind that this source has been ... blindly enthusiastic for soccer in Tampa, and to my mind, most of his comments have been based more on his own dreams than based on any reality.

Nevertheless, since Austin's joining the group next year, I figured it was worth pointing out and, if anyone feels like wasting time, speculating and bloviating about.

[mgrayscale]

I think this would be a great step not only for USL, but also futbol in the US. One of the answers that I've gotten (and agree with) is that part of the enjoyment of futbol in other countries is the idea of promotion and relegation, teams owning the contracts and not the league, and partnerships with international clubs that will encourage "loaning" of players. To my knowledge, MLS doesn't do nor is open to any of the above, and USL is. Historically, the discussions I've participated in have been around MLS being equivalent to a "Premier" league with USL1 being First Division, USL2 being Second Division, etc. The problem is the less than congenial relationship between the two leagues.

I would be interesting though to see a USL with more money.

[FrogHammer]

People that don't like soccer like to talk crap about it in the US. They say it's boring and will never amount to a 1st tier sport here. But they are wrong because when I was growing up playing soccer, there were no games on ESPN for me to watch, much less Fox Soccer Channel. There was no established pro league that lasted more than a few years to follow. Only rich white kids even played the sport in organized leagues.
Times have changed and a growing USL is the only way to get to the next level. Kids that can go to live games in their local communities will be fans for life. To them, even the Aztex U-23's are pros. They are lining up for autographs after the games and these guys are heroes. They will go in their backyards and take imaginary penalty kicks against the Silverbacks and win the game for us.
Success for the USL can only help the MLS, in that the two leagues will either combine and form a ladder structure (i.e. relegation/promotion) or, more likely, big USL teams will become MLS teams over time until the MLS gets big enough (probably about 30 teams or so).

[Sandon Mibut]

Nike certainly has the money - and the gumption to stick it to adidas - to pull this off but I will belive it when I see it.

[sokaymckay]

People that don't like soccer like to talk crap about it in the US. They say it's boring and will never amount to a 1st tier sport here. But they are wrong because when I was growing up playing soccer, there were no games on ESPN for me to watch, much less Fox Soccer Channel. There was no established pro league that lasted more than a few years to follow. Only rich white kids even played the sport in organized leagues.
Times have changed and a growing USL is the only way to get to the next level. Kids that can go to live games in their local communities will be fans for life. To them, even the Aztex U-23's are pros. They are lining up for autographs after the games and these guys are heroes. They will go in their backyards and take imaginary penalty kicks against the Silverbacks and win the game for us.
Success for the USL can only help the MLS, in that the two leagues will either combine and form a ladder structure (i.e. relegation/promotion) or, more likely, big USL teams will become MLS teams over time until the MLS gets big enough (probably about 30 teams or so).

Amen and amen! I've even noticed a trend of respite tolerance and open discussion on forums and bulletin boards and much less 'soccer bashing'. we are on the verge of a surge dude!

[kenntomasch]

Skeptical.

It would take A LOT of money to compete with MLS. I know Nike has A LOT of money, but would they throw it at USL just to spite adidas? Has adidas realized any huge growth because of their exclusive deal with MLS? I don't know, I'm asking.

But "USL competing with MLS" discussions seem to happen all the time.

Plus, I'm skeptical of the source of the original post.

And the news came from "the USL-1 president of the owners association?" WTF is that?

[Sandon Mibut]

Skeptical.

It would take A LOT of money to compete with MLS. I know Nike has A LOT of money, but would they throw it at USL just to spite adidas? Has adidas realized any huge growth because of their exclusive deal with MLS? I don't know, I'm asking. Further, the Swoosh is a publically traded company and explaining to a bunch of anxious stockholders why, in this economy, they're propping up a struggling minor league soccer organization (how they'll see it) won't be an easy sell.

Hell, that's a tough sell in a booming economy.

[FrogHammer]

First of all, the entertainment industry traditionally does well during down times in the economy. Hollywood and Broadway were booming during the great depression as people sought diversion from their troubles lives. Secondly, investing in the PDL wouldn't even be on the radar at a board meeting in terms of cost. They pay more for a Tiger Woods commercial than their entire investment in the USL.

[kenntomasch]

Which doesn't mean they'd do it.

They'd get some benefit out of the Tiger Woods commercial.

I'm still skeptical.

[FrogHammer]

Which doesn't mean they'd do it.

They'd get some benefit out of the Tiger Woods commercial.

I'm still skeptical.

You could be right. It's all about getting on TV and getting people to watch it. The EPL doesn't have very many fans at most of it's games. The TV deal they have is where the money comes from to buy big name players.

The problem IMO has a lot to do with the cameras and lighting. If you watch a USL game on tv the number and quality of cameras, and the lighting cheapen the experience. American football is painfully slow but they have so many cameras, great lighting, and cool replays that they can disquise the fact that you are basically watching very little happen for a really long time.

[kenntomasch]

TV money is the key to the EPL's largesse, I grant you.

But they only have that TV money because of the vast interest there is in the sport in England.

And, yes, they do have very many fans at most of their games.

USL television is farther along now than several years ago. It's still not great, because the sport doesn't translate to television really well, even if you do spend a boatload of money. Nike would have to not only invest in the league itself, they'd have to seriously upgrade the TV experience and even THEN you're not going to have a lot of TV interest in the Silverbacks against the RailHawks.

[FrogHammer]

I guess I have to reluctantly agree with you. So maybe the USL has a ways to go yet.
I will say that MLS games are a lot more fun to watch than they were even a few years ago. Either I have just gotten used to them or the quality of play is getting better. I know they are winning some of the summer friendlies against EPL teams so it's getting harder to deny that they are at least decent teams.
And even though I hate to admit this as well, I will tune in to watch big names like Beckham or Angel just to see how they stack up in the MLS.

[AndyMead]

Further, the Swoosh is a publically traded company and explaining to a bunch of anxious stockholders why, in this economy, they're propping up a struggling minor league soccer organization (how they'll see it) won't be an easy sell.

Hell, that's a tough sell in a booming economy.

Which is one of the reasons why the WUSA failed. It was owned by Time-Warner, Cox, Charter Communications and John Hendricks (Discovery Networks). The losses had to be justified to the shareholders - whereas during the lean years MLS only had to be justified to Nancy Anschutz, Norma Hunt, and Myra Kraft.

When USL teams stop dropping divisions because the cost of playoff travel is bankrupting them (see: Richmond Kickers), let me know.

[kenntomasch]

Which is one of the reasons why the WUSA failed. It was owned by Time-Warner, Cox, Charter Communications and John Hendricks (Discovery Networks). The losses had to be justified to the shareholders - whereas during the lean years MLS only had to be justified to Nancy Anschutz, Norma Hunt, and Myra Kraft.

Norma Hunt = still gettin' it done.

[Sandon Mibut]

Norma Hunt = still gettin' it done.GMILF?

[kenntomasch]

As of three years ago, yeah.

[sokaymckay]

GMILF?

:eek:

[mgrayscale]

GMILF?!? TMI.

There's been so much discussion around whether soccer can succeed here as a "mainstream" sport, and not just in the same vein as curling, lacrosse, and lawndarts. Maybe it's related to the Euro2008 finals, as major tournaments invariably generate the same discussion; how can soccer succeed in the US?

In 1994, when the World Cup Finals were in the US, it was a small crowd of US fans and media (and I mean small) that even knew what the World Cup was, let alone participated directly or indirectly.

In 2002, when the World Cup was in the Far East, a few games were shown live (I still remember Senegal thumping France in the very first match), but most were either time delayed or not shown at all.

In 2006, when the World Cup was in Germany, more matches were show live, but most were in the latter elimination stages. Of the games that were on, NOTHING was shown in the same manner as many of the American sports (i.e. early high def).

In 2008, ESPN is showing every Euro2008 finals match live and in high def (with the exception of the first day, which was on ESPN Classic). Andy Gray has been brought over to provide commentary, because there was such an outrage against the American announcers for World Cup '06, who at times didn't even use the right terminology or names.

I can't wait until World Cup 2010 (side bet, will it actually be held in South Africa? If not, where?). I'm expecting every game in high def with a major build up to the finals (frankly, whether the US team qualifies or not). Yes, we'll still have to deal with some of the lame announcers, but they'll be relegated to ESPNews, and will have minimal impact.

I think the 3 keys to soccer continuing to be successful are:

1. Get a system that has worked in almost every other league outside the US; promotion, relegation, and the teams owning the contracts for players. MLS has not tended to do any of these, rather, it's constructed off of the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. It doesn't work for soccer.
2. Get a major network to show more of the matches from leagues like the EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etc. It'll show the diversity of style and frankly, a quality of futbol that many MLS teams are still trying to reach.
3. Get more people out to watch live matches. As Phil Rawlins said after Tuesday's match, and I'm paraphrasing, "How could anyone watch that match tonight and say that soccer is a boring sport?"

I now yield the soapbox...

[kuhnscoot]

In 2002, when the World Cup was in the Far East, a few games were shown live (I still remember Senegal thumping France in the very first match), but most were either time delayed or not shown at all.


No, every match was on live since it was on in the middle of the night here. 1 or 2 matches a day were shown delayed during the day as well.

[mgrayscale]

No, every match was on live since it was on in the middle of the night here. 1 or 2 matches a day were shown delayed during the day as well.

Thank you, kuhnscoot, I do stand corrected on the coverage of the 2002 World Cup. In my research, I saw a number of the quarterfinal matches were tape, but I didn't see that they had live coverage of these matches in the early morning hours on ESPN/ABC.