OMG. MLS didn't push for higher D2 standards because it didn't affect them at all (they had no horse in the race).... that is, until they were able to put their thumb on the scale in favor of USL moving up en masse to D2 from D3 after USL committed to become the exclusive home of all MLS2, MLS U23, and all MLS affiliated teams.... duh. MLS is NOT INNOCENT in this... they threatened the NASL with proposed changes in D1 standards. http://www.empireofsoccer.com/details-antitrust-mlsussf-40732/ The goal Stover is referring to is the evolving Division I standards which are being proposed within USSF requiring a Division I league to have at least 16 teams (Up from 12), 75 percent of the teams in the league must have a population of at least two million (up from one million) and all stadiums must have a seating capacity of 15,000. Stover labeled these new standards “crazy.” “The Premier League would not be first division under US Soccer’s rules because Bournemouth stadium is under 15,000. La Liga wouldn’t be first division because Eibar and one other team is under 15k. Atletic Bilbao wouldn’t be allowed in the American first division and it’s crazy. [Requirements] changed and it’s changed every year for the past three years.” What on earth on you talking about? In an open system, actual clubs compete to win promotion. If this were an option in USL, you'd see higher investment in teams and facilities than the millions upon millions thrown at luring Garber's MLS into choosing your fair city.... jeesus, man. Other leagues? You mean the one league MLS/USSF favors, USL. MLS controls the playing field, chooses and plays its expansion favorites against each other, and charges an ever increasing king's ransom to join. Now you're sounding like an MLS bot (again). Do you get residuals? I'll trust soccer people like Rocco and Silva over NFL-centric billionaires and outright douches like Precourt and Hauptmann any day of the week. They are both successful businessmen (as is the owner of Jacksonville's franchise) who got into NASL late and were never given a proper chance from USSF/MLS/SUM to succeed. I mean, if it'd been three to five years from when they got in, then maybe.... If USSF had standards which properly prioritized club financials over league financials, Silva and Commisso would still be owners of D2 clubs and half of USL would never have been promoted from D3 to D2.
Well as we now know, the proposal that got Stover so fired-up was never so much as brought to a vote. Given that we know from your very own inbox that NASL were in support of a higher D2 standard in order to push themselves above USL, it's hard to have much sympathy. Particularly as his club were seemingly the instigators of not only a rejection of an MLS/NASL partnership but also an aggressive shift in his league's mission statement, that most likely set it on the road to ruin. I also find his comparison to European leagues a tad disingenuous. The environment, culture, scale and needs of those leagues are very different to those of US soccer. I think we're in agreement that we're still not ready for pro/rel yet and leagues are largely independent of one another, so unfortunately this isn't too practical right now. If a league were to institure pro/rel though, perhaps a solution could be some kind of USSF independent club standards?
Given USSF's history of being fairly generous with waivers as long as the league or club in question had a concrete plan to cure the defects, USSF would probably waive the time zone and market size requirements if there were a viable pro/rel league setup. They only pulled the NASL's waivers when the NASL failed to produce even a plan to become compliant. A logical tweak that I think would work for league certification purposes would be: in a pro/rel league system, is there a theoretically possible distribution of clubs between leagues within the system such that each league would meet its division standards? If it is at all possible to distribute the clubs within the league system in such a way that all the clubs in the system (with their current organizations and stadia) meet the USSF requirements for the division they are in, and each league meets the market size and time zone requirements, all the divisions should be sanctioned at the proposed levels, even if the clubs aren't currently competing at those levels.
Uh-oh. Just as I thought we could find some common ground about laying some groundwork for the implementation of a tiered hierarchical system he gets all antsy again. "MLS didn't push for higher D2 standards because it didn't affect them at all" is perfectly true. NASL did the work for them.. As for USL moving up en masse from D3 to D2, hasn't USL committed to meeting D2 standards from 2020? First of all he said that in 2015. Was there any evidence that this was a serious proposal? Secondly we are almost in 2019 and there's been no vote. I'm actually talking about the biggest obstacle to promotion and relegation as I see it, which is that MLS can just pick off the biggest clubs in the lower leagues, like Montreal, Orlando, Minnesota and Cincinnati, the lower divisions are ever going to close the gap with MLS/D1. MLS will not vote for promotion and relegation unless there's an overwhelming business case. The USSF will not force promotion and relegation on MLS, nor will CONCACAF, FIFA or the US courts. The best we can hope for anytime soon is a pyramid from D2 down, so lets discuss what can be done and not fantasize. Do you honestly believe that MLS will somehow be forced to adopt pro-rel? //sarcastic response from a Notts County fan. May 2018 (prior to promotion/relegation playoffs) The German Football League (DFL) has denied Holstein Kiel a special licence to play in their 10,000-capacity Holstein-Stadion should they win their first promotion to the Bundesliga because their ground does not meet top-flight standards. Germany's most northern club have appealed the decision, but now could be forced to play their home games away from home. Well provided the money was funneled into the right areas, including infrastructure and player development that's a good thing. If it all gets sucked up by players' salaries as clubs gamble on promotion, it's not so good. Look at NASL v1, when that collapsed we were left with zero. And I have said several times that I think that's a huge millstone. In order for US soccer to fully develop MLS has to stop expanding. Not sure why we're not in agreement here. I'm not accusing Silva or Commisso of anything untoward, other than grandstanding, and have nothing personal against either of them. But at least in the rest of the world soccer club ownership is not known for it's jurisprudence. Just look at my neighborhood in England. The head of the company that bought Notts County in 2009 is awaiting a trial date in Jersey after being released from house arrest in Qatar, the current Forest owner is facing match fixing charges in Greece while Leicester City's owners stand accused of defrauding the Thai government of $400 million. Right but didn't we discuss how those standards came about? My problem with Commisso's purchase of the Cosmos is wtf was he thinking? “Like so many of our fantastic fans, I have followed the Cosmos since the fabulous days of Pelé, Chinaglia, Alberto, and Beckenbauer,” An average of 4,302 tickets were distributed to Cosmos fans in 2016, many of whom were either kids or from immigrant communities (Nassau County being home to 100,000 Salvadoreans).
I'd just like to point out that @feyenoordsoccerfan has been your biggest proponent and advocate during your absences, even trying to channel your misdirected anger.
I agree in principle but we know MLS plans to expand to 28 while 30-32 is typical for a major US league. My question for some time has been "While MLS can accommodate more teams, why not let them?". There are benefits to being in the top flight, so making a hard stop before being necessary, seems like needlessly limiting viable teams. Now once we hit a point where expansion is causing diminishing returns, then we stop and if there are viable markets and owners sitting outside D1, then pro/rel has a very serious case. At this point, the business case might be - especially with revenue sharing - that multiple tiers grant access to more markets and therefore greater income. Combined with my "MLS Classic" and "MLS Independent" idea from earlier, we might have something. Of course, I'm also the guy who advocates 4 separate regional divisions with no pro/rel and a "champions league" style competition to determine the national title.
One of the wonders of pro-rel: Feb 10, 2009 AFC Bournemouth have negotiated a deferral on their stadium rental payments to landlords Structadene. The deal, which at present isn’t clear on the exact time frame will see the Cherries pay the rent on a monthly instead of quarterly and have interest on late payments waived. The rent will also decrease from around £30k a month to £15k, however the shortfall will eventually have to be repaid. Dec 4, 2018 Bournemouth 2, Huddersfield 1 Hosts survive onslaught to go 6th.
Anyway you slice it, the lower divisions aren't going to close the gap on MLS until MLS stops growing. And if the path to MLS remains open, and the path to MLS is through USL, that screws NISA and NPSL. I see Seattle has scored a NHL franchise for a mere $650 million.
I agree. It will be impossible to maintain a strong D2 if MLS keeps plucking off any successful franchise. It remains to be seen how the incoming teams draw (and how stable the league stays), but my gut feeling is that USL's average attendance needs to be more along the lines of San Antonio than Fresno (and the average will take a significant hit without Cincinnati). However, if every team that draws around 10K or greater gets absorbed into MLS, it just pushes D2 down more.
But.... MLS won't expand forever The teams that get absorbed into MLS while it's expanding will be all the better for it Even without FC Cincinnati, the average non-MLS2 USL team is still going to average typical D2 numbers IMO while there is still value to be had in expanding D1, limiting D1-ready teams for the purposes of strengthening D2 is a false economy; if MLS had stopped at 10, we might have a strong D2 now but the net strength of our clubs would be lower
I see you're arguing with me through a middle man. Cool. Without the business people, the marketing people, the ticket people, there's no professional team to speak of. You have to have all of that lined up and ready to go before a ball is even kicked. Want to know why Cincinnati was successful in a market that had killed numerous soccer teams before it? They went in with the right business plan and mindset before setting up the team then backed it up with results on the field. The owners of FCC pumped millions of "sporting merit" into the club before MLS was even realistic. Maybe if the Cosmos or Miami FC had listened to sports marketers, they'd still be playing in a viable D2 league. That makes no sense. Seriously. None. I really wish you truthers would get this idea out of your head. Kicking a bad team down to a lower level in a market where that never happens in any other pro league is business suicide. But you'll just keep repeating it along with all the other nonsense that you cling to. Louisville Percentage of incomes under $25,000: 29% Percentage of population with bachelor's degree: 26.9% Percentage of incomes over $150,000: 6.4% (#23, tied with Baltimore) Total population: 601,611 Unlike other major cities like Boston or Baltimore, Louisville hasn't moved on from the manufacturing industries that used to be its life-blood. Baltimore is still a major shipping hub and Pittsburgh has moved to be a healthcare and research hub. Louisville hasn't done any of that. I distinctly remember when Louisville was trying to court the Grizzlies from Vancouver. They were basically promising a new arena but few things held them back. One was lack of a viable owner, one was lack of a major corporate sponsor and another was the real possibility that the population literally didn't have the disposable income to support an NBA team. The Kentucky Derby is a one-off event in an industry that's supported by a small cadre of the super-wealthy. Talladega hosts one of the largest sporting events in the country every year, I guess we should plop and MLB team there too. You've never had any evidence of this. None. Then that's on them for not doing proper research. NASL made standards that they couldn't abide by and Silva and Comisso would rather sue than join USL or drop down to D3 and rebuild like USL did. But this has all been explained to you. You're always going to have teams in markets that are no value to MLS. Once MLS gets to about 30 or 32 they'll probably pause. The door will never be closed (NBA and MLB are looking at expansion now) but after a while, it won't make sense to expand. USL could try to hit D1 standards. They're expanding into Chicago and there are other large markets without pro soccer teams still out there. Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland, Norfolk/VA Beach, Jacksonville, all come to mind. If you can get more investment in Orange County and maybe plop a team in San Diego you can build a D1 level within USL. But they're not doing it the way Europe does it so they're the enemy in the eyes of the pro/rel brigade.
Meanwhile, Mr #ProRelforUSA himself and proposed USSF VP candidate Chris Kessell, makes factually incorrect statements in the very mission statement of the cause. "The United States, Canada, and Australia are the only federations in the entire world that have a closed and locked pyramid that suppress their member clubs and confine them to pre-defined classes." And FTR, while Chris is another serial blocker who apparently prefers an echo chamber, I do hold him up as a credible voice in the debate. http://prorelforusa.com
No, but we don't know what the ceiling is, yet. At the expense of every other team that will never be in a MLS market if the rest of the pyramid becomes a cratered out hull. I'm not sure what this means, exactly. USL independents average anywhere from Sacramento (at above 11.5K) to Charlotte (at 1.6K). Of the independents: There are 8 that average less than 4K/game (5 of those less than 3K) 7 that average over 6K/game (not counting Cincinnati, but including Nashville). Of those, 4 average over 7K, 2 over 10K. 8 in the 6K<>4K range: 6 of those are under 5K. That's an enormous spread, so what are "typical" D2 numbers? Around 5,000-ish? But the question is really where Albuquerque, Austin, Birmingham, El Paso, Hartford, and Memphis fit in: more like Louisville or more like Pittsburgh? Eh... I'm not sure if this is quite the stretch you're making it. If every successful USL team in a halfway decent market gets absorbed by MLS and that leaves behind only the Fresnoes and Colorado Springses, I'm not sure that's really good for the overall health of the sport in this country. NOBODY outside of an MLS market is paying attention to MLS at all. I think you need a vibrant and healthy independent pyramid (i.e. not a farm system a la MiLB). It doesn't have history or tradition to draw neutrals and (and this is my opinion, granted) I believe we've reached a point in sports history where teams or leagues that don't already have strong neutral support will never get it: the space is oversaturated. Eventually MLS is going to have to come to terms with the fact that expansion will never raise their profile in the markets that are outside of their expansion plans. And that may be fine. They may be happy having mindshare akin to the NHL (especially in most of the U.S.). But if there was a possibility for any market to be in the top flight at some point? That's a pretty good way to pique the interests of fans in Phoenix, Detroit, San Diego, Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.
I'm not going to argue for Louisville's case for a major league team, but I do think you're overselling sport leagues and franchise owners as rational economic actors. By pretty much every metric you've used in your argument against Louisville, New Orleans fares worse and yet they have two major league teams (what they do have going for them is large regional exclusivity - Milwaukee can't claim that, however, and they also have 2). It makes zero sense for the NFL to have lost teams in L.A. to St. Louis and Oakland (and even less for the Chargers to have left San Diego to have moved there) and yet here we are. There are tons of variables at play in why franchises exist where they do, but let's don't pretend it's a predictable or rational process.
One caveat on this is that while it's a crazy long distance until the next major market, there aren't a whole lot of people in the radius. SLC is a similar example.
If you look at Spain, Italy, France, second division teams tend to get 1,500 to 15,000, with the majority between 5 and 9k.
They've stated 28 but I think we can assume that 30-32 is probable. Well you'll see that kind of relative spread in any league. The average for the independents minus FCC is in the mid 5000s, which indeed within the typical range. I did say "while expanding". I advocate pro/rel once expansion stops and teams with serious D1 potential remain outside. The thing is, where pro/rel has been implemented based on organic growth, it was forced by events outside the upper tier(s). I'd suggest that if there isn't some kind of push for either a rival D1 or pro/rel after MLS reaches a probable stopping-point, then it's indicative of the US pro sports landscape not being a great environment for pro/rel. I don't see much evidence that the mere possibility for promotion is going to pique that interest either. As we've seen, if a team is on the cusp of moving up, attendances will get a bit of an uplift but more often than not, the real boom only comes once they actually move up. As I stated above and previously, minor leagues don't seem to attract appreciably worse attendances than open lower leagues. The real driver is profile and standard. I sincerely believe that if MLS was playing at the level of La Liga or EPL, it would draw neutrals far more effectively than the theoretical possibility of a local team being promoted.
Half of the cities of clubs in Liga Segunda have population less than 150,000. Three quarters less than 500,000. Only Malaga has over 1 million, the next largest being 650,000. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison there.
I don't necessarily mean simply for the local team with this. I mean interest in the ecosystem writ large: if your team or your hated rival from the bush leagues makes it to MLS (for argument's sake), you're much more likely be aware of the league as a whole. Fans of crappy SEC teams (raises hand meekly) are acutely aware of how their hated conference rivals do in the BCS playoffs despite the fact that they will likely not sniff a top-four berth... possibly ever again (cries softly alone in a darkened room thinking back to the glory years two decades ago).
Definitely not apples to apples when you consider that the top four team sports in Spain and Italy are soccer, soccer, soccer and soccer. But I was just answering your question.
Of course soccer is a bigger sport in Spain, but Gijón is a tenth the size of Charlotte and averaging an order of magnitude larger crowds. I can't help but think the fact that half of their history having been in La Liga or competing for it might be a factor in that.
Undoubtedly. Though it should be noted that at its current levels of popularity, MLS is drawing La Liga numbers, rather than NFL. The ratio of D2 attendance compared to D1 (and D3 when we had one) is similar to what we see in Spain.
So you have done a great job of explaining the craziness and nuances of college football and why pro/rel will never happen there. Something that I completely agree with you on. But you haven't answered the question I asked, the question being which system would be better for the fans? And the reason I am using College football is that's a sport that grew up more organically with less top down control so it's more like European sports, as opposed to American Professional Sports that all grew within a structure of an organized league(s) where expansion and markets were controlled from the top. So that's why I am using college football to analyze possible American Pro/Rel, even while trying to make it clear from the start that this isn't going to happen. But I am still curious what people think about the system STRICTLY from a fans perspective. And I understand that "fans" are not a singular group either. So that's my question, which fans might like, which fans might hate it? Why would they hate it why would they like it. That's my question and my purpose for bringing it up*. *Although if you do want to get into the nitty gritty of how it could happen that's fine too. While I agree it won't happen I disagree on some of your reasons.
That's another issue in the US. The distances between populated areas are much larger than Europe. After NYC, the Albany area, Buffalo-Rochester, Syracuse and maybe the lower Hudson Valley, New York State is deserted. There are about 2 million people in an area that houses about 25 million in England.
Based on over 100 years of successful sports in both college and professional ranks I can say that the system we have now seems to be working pretty well for the fans. I'll never concede that kicking a team out of a league for one bad year is "better" because that's idiotic. I say this as a lifelong fan of the Bengals and Reds so I've had decades of experience with teams breaking my heart.