If the MLS eventually expands to something like 32 teams, it might be possible to split the MLS into two divisions and have relegation and promotion between those two divisions.
Hell, you could go long way toward this to There are a ton of markets to expand to. The only limitation is how bad would the optics be for the bottom 5 2nd division teams - how big do you want the 2nd division to be. The split doesn't have to be even. The 1st division could have, like 26 teams and the bottom division could have 14. That way almost all of the bottom teams have a shot at promotion at the beginning of the season. If they have any brains though, they'd come up with a plan now. They could announce the creation of MLS2, a second division, which would be ramped up for eventual pro/rel. Add like, 6 to 8 teams for a 6 to 8 team 2nd division. Let that league exist for a couple of years while the teams get their act together. That would give the current ownership group time to get their head around the fact that this will eventually happen. If they want to sell their team, they can sell it. I bet every single one of them would get one hell of a lot more money than they paid for it - even with pro/rel looming in a few years. Nobody is going to take a loss because of pro-rel if the league does it right.
Yeah, you might be able to do that, but there are a bunch of things that might not fly. Who is going to want to be in MLS 2? If you have 2 16-team divisions, the top 8 of MLS 1 could do playoffs in the normal fashion. What do you do with the rest? Have a bottom 8 play off against the top 8 from MLS 2? Or do you have, say the top 12 in the MLS 1 playoffs like now, and the bottom 4 in the relegation playoffs? What about the other 12 teams in MLS 2 who don't get playoffs of any kind?
I followed up, saying that the leagues don't have to be evenly balanced. I'd put more teams in MLS1. Limit the size of the 2nd Division. I don't have a magic number, but 26/14? 30/10? As far as the bottom teams from MLS2, ya, there may be a Tampa Bay Rays in there or two. But, overall, the benefit of having, eventually, 40 markets where kids grow up with a team to root for, will greatly expand the audience for soccer. I'm guessing that soccer ratings are the worst in the South. If you've got legit pro teams in Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, and North Carolina, you're going to expand interest in the game dramatically in that region. The question is coming up with ownership groups. But, there's no hurry. Come up with a plan and the ownership groups will come.
Dear Pro/Rel (Euroclone) supporter, We already have pro/rel in MLS today: Based on total season performance, a fixed number of bottom teams are "relegated out" of the next season. Meanwhile a fixed number of top teams are promoted to a higher level of competition. And the MLS version of pro/rel has the advantage that relegated teams (and their fans) are back in the league the next season. We call it "the Playoffs". With the caveat that every US sports fan knows the century old US sports maxim: "Playoffs are a whole new season."
They have to be one season with everyone in same division, Then the league divided based on that season's results. League 2 could hold a playoff for the last promotion place for teams 4 through 7. In sure this is very unlikely to happen b/c owners wouldn't want to be in League 2. but it might keep interest up for the second tier teams fighting for promotion. Also, it solves the problem of a franchise being relegated out of a league, they paid to be in.
So owners wouldnt want to be in Division 2 yet being in Div 2 wouldnt be a problem because theyd be getting the same revenue regardless of division? Am I missing something?
there doesn't have to be a season w/ everyone in. You could just let new franchises buy into MLS2, and then when that's up and running, you initiate pro/rel. It would give the present ownership groups a few seasons to sell if they want to get out and not risk rel. And, I wonder what the ratings would be for relegation battles and promotion battles, vs. what playoff ratings are currently (not to imply that there wouldn't be playoffs - just saying that I bet the interest level in those matches would be pretty high by MLS standards).
They'd be about as good as a Cleveland Browns vs. Buffalo Bills Thursday Night NFL Game. Americans don't like to watch two crappy teams play, period. The only people that would be interested in a relegation and/or promotion playoff would be the fans of the teams involved, and a very small subset of uber hardcore US pro soccer fans.
https://www.lyonspr.com/latest-nielsen-dma-rankings/ After the top 2 markets, there isn't much separating the rest of the markets. The top 2 markets have two teams each. To lose that market, you'd have to relegate both of them. The next 8 markets have between 2 and 3% of the tv homes each. If you were to replace one of those with St. Louis, Indianapolis, etc., you would only lose 1-2% of the homes in the U.S. There are many USL markets that are bigger than current MLS markets. The USL may soon get a Chicago team with a better stadium than MLS has. I don't think the risk of losing any one team for a few seasons would be a deal breaker. If I had to guess, I would say the breakdown aligns a lot more with where people live, than with their education. If you live in a city with an MLS team (or you're a current MLS owner), you're likely to see pro/rel as stupid. You gain very little from it, but there's a chance you could lose a lot. If you live in a city without a team, (or you're a prospective owner in an MLS city who wants a team but doesn't have one) you're a lot more likely to see the benefit of pro/rel. It's easy to see why the owners like the system the way it is, and why that will be difficult to change. In my opinion, it's also easy to see why a lot of fans find pro/rel attractive. A lot of people said a college football playoff would never happen too, because of the vested interests in the old bowl system, but the fans wanted it, so the powers that be realized it would be more profitable for everyone, and they found a way to make it happen. Maybe after more MLS stadiums get old, and they start threatening to move more teams, the tide will turn. It seems obvious why you would want to share revenues. Owners are primarily afraid of the financial risk from relegation. If you share some revenues between the divisions, it reduces that risk.
MLS would kill for those ratings, even if it was only one game a year. You just described every MLS regular season game. In the grand scheme of things, MLS has improved a lot, but it's still pretty far from the best leagues, and the tv ratings reflect that. How many people from Columbus are watching RSLvColorado? Of the people that go to games with you, how many of them do you think watch two random other MLS teams on tv on a regular basis? Maybe they tune in to see Zlatan once, but after that...? You don't think people would watch an upstart new team try to play their way in against one of the NFL owners who seem to forget they have an MLS team?
And, to clarify, I'm saying you share the revenue the same way it's shared now. MLS would be MLS, whether it's 1 or 2. The D2 teams may take a hit on attendance, or their local media rights. That would be their motivation to stay up, or get up.
If the financial risks are so great, whats the point of pro/rel that cant be solved with the current model? And what motivation is there when a team can do everything right and yet still get relegated because someone has to and a dash of bad luck?
To me the argument is this: The U.S. is a huge country with a lot of money. It is silly to limit the number of soccer markets in the U.S to, like 28. It should be more like 40. But, 40 is too many for one league. Even at 28, the bottom 8 teams are going to know early on that they've got nothing to play for. So, go to 40 markets and give almost all of them something to play for. Have a top division of like 28 teams, and a lower division of like 12 teams. "If the financial risks are so great" That's what I'm saying - I think it can be done w/o the financial risks being so great. League revenue is still shared by all teams. So ..... what financial hit? They would take a hit in attendance, probably. The natural course of this - the way things are now, would be that a rogue league would start up, offering lower franchise fees, in the markets that are currently begging for a team. Like the AFL and ABA. After a decade or so, the viable teams would be absorbed. But, FIFA has this crazy thing where leagues have to be sanctioned by the Fed. And, the Fed is as corrupt as corrupt gets - Garber and Co are not going to take money out of their pockets, allowing another viable league to exist. So, in the absence of that (competition), it seems to me like the league should grow to about 40 teams, w/ 2 divisions, shared revenue among all teams regardless of division. And, like I've said, this doesn't have to happen overnight.
Once you get to around 32 teams or so, adding more teams means the rewards for growth become far more minimal. The TV contract, in whatever form it takes, won't get much bigger between 32 teams or more to warrant the extra division. You just aren't adding that many more eyeballs and wallets. And we're past the point where a challenger league would be able to challenge. All the good markets are taken and in good enough shape that challenges won't be able to succeed enough to matter. I still don't see the need for pro/rel. If you're going to share revenue, just do the split a la MLB and be done with it. Oh and if attendance drops, so will revenue. Less people means fewer of everything else sold which means lower sponsorships and so forth.
I don't think we're past where a challenger league could launch. It's way earlier in the development than the NFL or NBA were. The NASL owners didn't think it was too far gone. I disagree about the 32 team point of diminishing returns. The TV contract may not be much bigger initially. But, the point is to grow the market for soccer in the U.S. Adding 8 more teams where people have a rooting interest will make a difference in the long run. These are the markets I proposed were: Miami Sacramento San Diego Las Vegas Phoenix Tampa Detroit Miami Cleveland St. Louis North Carolina Indianapolis Nashville Milwaukee Cincinatti New Orleans San Antonio You tell me which 8 of those you would eliminate, and that it wouldn't make a difference. But, my interest isn't whether each additional franchise would create a rate of return sufficient for SUM. My point is that if there was this corrupt system, there would probably be about 40 viable pro teams in the U.S. some time in the next 10 years, or so. And, it's way doable by suMLS.
I'd interpret the decision this way: Adding Milwaukee increases the TV audience by all the extra people in Milwaukee who will now watch. Adding Milwaukee increases the cost to MLS of funding their roster. Does the extra revenue cover the extra cost? It's oversimplifying, but broadly, the quality of a (TV-revenue-sharing) league depends on average revenue, and so to maximize the quality of the league, you want to maximize average revenue (not total revenue or some marginal consideration). If the goal is to max quality (or at least salary budgets) then I would probably only add a handful of those cities. If the goal is to have the maximum number of teams, then all of those cities would work, at cost of not being able to pay the players as much. Right now, TV isn't as big of a deal for MLS as it is for other leagues, but someday it might be, and it's hard to reduce the size of a league after the fact.
We are way past it. It is far cheaper for anyone wanting to run a team to join MLS than challenge them. By billions and billions of dollars. From that list, with Cinci and Nashville in, I'd cut New Orleans, San An, Cleveland, Sacramento, San Diego, Vegas, Milwaukee, and Tampa. Just FYI we do have over 40 pro teams in the US. NASL couldn't figure out how to be pro so are not part of that list.
This thread seems like finding a way to do something that can be labelled pro/rel without actually doing pro/rel, just to appease a loud 1% of fans who will just find some other reason to hate the league. What's the point?
I don't really care about p/r. I just think it doesn't make any sense to limit the number of teams. Imo, if you're going to grow to the potential of this country, it'll fit like 40 markets. And, if your going to do that, you need 2 divisions. You find a way to have 40 viable pro teams w/o 2 divisions and p/r, and I will be fine with that.
Sorry that should read "inter" conference matches. I think 40 would be too many. 2 conferences of 20 each. If they ever go to 40 then I don't think there will be any room for cross conference matches. Because you would have 38 (home and away) matches inside the conference. If you had 2 18 team conferences then you could have 34 matches inside the conference and 1 or 2 outside.