The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA

How many times have you watched Man Utd getting relegated and slipping down the leagues?

Like clockwork...

 

Nothing will affect anyone's position on the overarching topic.

 

What's ruining this thread is the kneejerk intolerance shown to some of the - very small - number of posts that are in favour of pro/rel and/or point out the flaws of the closed league system.

 

So you have never experienced a relegation and experienced the lows of what it feels like to see your team move down the pyramid. And nor, of course, can Colorado fans experience that.

You see, that is your intolerance speaking. In no way was it a "stupid question". "Playing for better draft choices" is an (accurate) metaphor for the fact that there are no serious consequences for a team to fail on the field of play in closed leagues - and in fact there is a "reward" for doing so. To me that is the antithesis of competition and Colorardo is a good example of that.

I don't want any credit for supporting Notts County, 'cos I don't.

 

Exactly. And this is why a Miami, Tampa Bay or Chivas situation is much more of a concern to a closed league like MLS than it would be in a pro/rel league.

 

Franchise means different things in different contexts, but @HailtotheKing is not wrong, the way you presented it didn't present the full picture.

So far as I can tell, MLS owners typically own a legal entity that is separate from MLS LLC. That entity, such as New York City FC LLC, owns part of MLS LLC, and the rights to operate an MLS team. MLS LLC owns the team's trademarks, holds the team's player contracts, and pays the team's players. But the teams contract with and pay front office staff and non-player technical staff. They handle their own ticket revenue, sponsors, stadium ownership or lease, contracts with in-stadium vendors and probably lots others that I'm forgetting. As part of their operating agreement with MLS, the teams remit part of their ticket revenue and jersey sponsorship to MLS LLC (but in return they get players paid for by the league). The key point is that the teams are very much different from the league and each have their own P/L and assets, the operating rights to an MLS team are just one of those assets, and is why they enjoy such different valuations.

Long-story short: it's complicated, but it's definitely wrong to say that "MLS owners only own part of the league, not a team." When you buy a ticket from an MLS team, you're contracting with that team, not MLS LLC.

And the pervasive old "MLS owns 51% of the teams" explanation just needs to die, as its even more misleading.

 

For those on this thread concerned about "fans being punished", here's an actual example:

"The problem is obvious when you watch the videos. Listen to the way Brian Sandoval, the governor of Nevada, spits out “Oakland Raiders.” The impatience is palpable."

Why would a team that plans to play two and maybe three more years in Oakland let “Fabulous Las Vegas” make its picks? The same reason the Raiders added Oakland native and previously retired running back Marshawn Lynch to their fold: They’re trying to have the best of both worlds.

"One day soon, the Raiders will be playing in “Fabulous Las Vegas.” Sandoval and Clark County Commission chair Steve Sisolak probably will be there. The heart of one of the most passionate fan bases in the NFL won’t."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/raiders-nfl-draft-picks-round-4-5-las-vegas-oakland-move

 

You were being facetious and rolling out the old "playing for draft picks" routine.

I answered with a list of obvious reasons a loyal and dedicated fan would attend whether the team is in a rebuilding phase or not.

As somebody who has followed a team (regardless of who) up and down the leagues, you will have been aware of those reasons.

Or in your mind, do they only apply if the drama of moving up or down divisions is a feature?

Again: it's not something I care for but it's not something pro/rel prevents either.

Nor is it a sound reason to pick one system over another.

 

And if MLS removes their rights to operate an MLS team, what does New York City FC LLC have left?

Anyway, my point is that as a closed entity MLS can directly interfere in the business of an ailing investor/operator, whereas the English Football League can only take action if a member is proven to have broken their rules.

 

A rather large opportunity to sue the pants of MLS and get their license back and/or be made whole via monetary restitution. I'm not sure what you're thinking here, but MLS can't just remove an operating license without cause...

 

All the things needed to run a soccer team other than players, the branding, and a league to play in. Those aren't nothing, but they aren't everything, and they aren't the organization itself. The organization could continue under different branding, with new players, in a new league. The stadium deal,* the front office staff, the technical staff, the academy, the second teams, the non-trademark IP like customer lists** and probably a lot of the fans would go along with the organization.

As a long-time follower of the Rangers drama, I know that these "what is a soccer club?" discussions become esoteric quickly. But thinking about MLS as one company with different divisions doesn't capture the relationship accurately, though that may have been closer to Rothenberg's original concept.

*There are almost certainly covenants that make those deals contingent on the teams continuing to have operating rights to an MLS team. On the other hand, some of the teams--or an entity closely related to the teams--own their stadiums.

**Though those are probably shared with the league as part of the operating agreement.

 

A non MLS soccer team that can no longer be called NYCFC.

 

The NFL in general, and the Raiders in particular, could not be less relevant to a promotion and relegation conversation.

 

There you go again. First you described my comment as a "stupid question", seemingly oblivious to the fact that is was a rhetorical question. Now you belittle my opinion as my "being facetious and rolling out the old 'playing for draft picks' routine", despite my having explained what that is a metaphor for. barroldinho, I really suggest you start arguing more constructively with people who have differing viewpoints to you. Your current routine is very tired and counterproductive to rational discussion.

Meanwhile, back on subject, the closed league system allows teams like Colorado to "play for better draft choices" with impunity. With pro/rel, not so much.

 

There you go again. First you described me as a "glory hunter". Now you try to play off a dismissive, belittling and loaded description of the closed system as "playing for draft picks" as a metaphor. M, I really suggest you start arguing more constructively with people who have differing viewpoints to you. Your current routine is very tired and counterproductive to rational discussion.

There you go again.

 

Back on the subject the closed league system allows teams like Colorado to not have to scuttle themselves in order to maintain the ability to put a product on the pitch .. with pro/rel, not so much.

 

"Playing for better draft choices" is an (accurate) metaphor for the fact that in closed leagues a team can fail on the field of play pretty much with impunity - and in fact there is a "reward" of better draft choices for doing so. To me that is the antithesis of competition and Colorardo seems to be a good example of that.

Seems like these Colorado fans agree:

"In its statement, Centennial 38 called Mastroeni’s comments “particularly concerning, because it gives supporters the impression that being competitive in 2017 is not important to the club.”

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/01/centennial-38-statement-rapids/

In a pro/rel enviornment, "not being competitive" has different consequences than getting better draft choices and thus has the effect of encouraging teams to be "honest" in their endeavours each season..

 

M,

You frequently come to this thread and describe US sports leagues as "closed league cartels". You describe expansion fees as "cartel entry fees". Those are clearly very loaded, accusatory terms, which by implication are going to push buttons with many fans of US sports leagues. Creating that tone and environment is very clearly not conducive to a cordial, pragmatic and objective debate.

You frequently describe closed leagues as "playing for draft picks", which is again accusatory because it implies that teams at the bottom of the league are knowingly tanking. Again, that's not conducive to a cordial, pragmatic and objective debate.

You frequently refer to me as a "glory hunter", which belittles everything about my lifelong support of a club. It's completely unnecessary, very personal and fundamentally undermines any potential for a good-natured discussion.

I don't believe for one second that you use these terms innocently. I find it hard to believe that you'd lead into discussions using those terms if your end goal was a good natured, faithful debate.

 

Is now a good time to point out that Liga MX has a draft?

 

Like Europa League qualification.

You should probably reach out to them. It seems they don't realize that a valuable draft pick is coming their way in 2018.

 

Colorado have already lost two more games than the current likely Europa League qualifier Manchester United have in almost an entire season. So... no.

I'll get right onto it.