With all due respect Crawls, you're not reading my posts properly. I didn't say anything was "inevitable". I said that it was far less likely that they'd have achieved the success they did, in the same time frame, based on the information available. In 50 years sure, anything can happen. However, if you're saying that we can't make estimates or frame cause and effect, then why discuss anything? I mean, you've made several declarations about what would happen if pro/rel was abolished in England. I completely agree that your estimate of the public not liking it and a backlash against the league and clubs responsible, is the most probable outcome. But based on your "You never know" assertion, it's possible that people take to the closed system, decide it's the best thing ever to happen in the sport and it's a resounding success. It's possible but based on the information to hand, it seems highly unlikely.
It's also "guesswork" for me to assume that I would be living somewhere a lot crappier and a lot cheaper if I were a heroin addict. But it's pretty likely, I'd say.
I certainly remember a time when I wondered how anyone could possibly break Liverpool's stranglehold, such was their dominance. Those days are long gone.
With the US Open Cup in full swing we've officially entered silly season in American soccer. Just as the "war on Christmas" bull starts around the holidays, the pro/rel crowd gets aroused this time of year. I don't understand it for several reasons: 1. The US Open Cup is a tournament and has nothing to do with pro/rel. 2. Pro/rel is stupid and 3. They (the few Twitter monsters) want to latch on to teams who are pub teams (Christos FC) or are run by billionaires that are bidding for MLS (FC Cincinnati). Then, you have this guy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/sports/soccer/dennis-crowley-kingston-stockade-fc.html Dennis Crowley, who had a net worth of $30 million has started a (cough) "grassroots" soccer team in a town in New York. Now, I'm not knocking the guy for starting a soccer team. If I had that much money, I'd probably buy in to a soccer league too. I'll even give him credit for disclosing all of his financial information on the team. What I don't get and what I can't give him credit for is his desire to "disrupt" the market by institution pro/rel. Here's an idea...pay your damn players! Dear God. This is the crap we get in the US. It would be one thing if NASL (a fully-pro league) wanted to fill itself out and institute pro/rel with another pro league or split into two tiers and do p/r between them. Go for it. It's stupid and won't work (which is why NASL balked at it before) but go for it. But one thing the smoke-bomb lighting, scarf-wearing, cosplaying try-hards never seem to understand when they're playing dress up at their local NPSL game is that these aren't pro players. The owners are making money off their efforts without compensating the players for their time and sweat. The reason pro/rel works (works is subjective) in other countries (in try-hard language, that means England), is that they have a nation full of professional teams. Sure, lets promote a semi-pro or amateur team to NASL. That'll make soccer popular when they get boat raced their first year up, go down, and go out of business because they weren't financially stable enough for the higher level.
Quite a few countries have pro/rel between amateur/semi-pro leagues and pro-leagues, so I'm not sure this should be a deterrent to it happening here.. I would think the most important factor would be how gradual that change is. If we're talking jumping from a amateur club to a $3 million payroll, that might be a bit much. That being said, at "only" $30 million in net worth, Crowley likely isn't going to be able to support a fully professional team for very long. Of course, I have no idea what his income is, so it could be such that it would offset the cost of a fully professional team, but I would think a jump up to a fully professional team would result in him living up to the adage "How do you make a millionaire owner in US soccer? Have him start out with over $10 million".
It shouldn't be but this is yet another example of where the US approach of sport AND business is much different than the rest of the world. "semi-pro" and "amateur" set ups are often included in the hierarchy sporting leagues/set ups in other countries. They are completely separated here.
Dennis Crowley is the guy who said that pro/rel would allow him to attract investors so that he could meet the $18k average payroll (that's the whole roster, annually) of an NPSL semi-pro team. My response is that if you need outside investment to meet that payroll in the division below USL/NASL (at the time USL was still D3), you've no business talking about promotion anyway. My understanding is that $18k isn't far off a USL player's yearly salary. Agreed, though it would appear that the gap between the semi-pro clubs in NPSL & PDL and the USL/NASL is especially large. And that's just payroll. Travel costs would likely be much higher for example. Then there's the NCAA situation (of course, that carries controversies of its own) whereby amateur players are often college kids who are ineligible to play alongside paid professionals, which is probably why there is such a clear division between full professional and amateur ranks.
The difference is really that other countries have a steady gradation of semipro clubs, paying at different levels, between pro and amateur. Going from entirely unpaid to fully professional generally involves moving up three or four levels. In the US, the entirely unpaid teams play in the division directly below fully professional teams. There's only a handful of semipro clubs that play alongside the amateurs in the PDL and NPSL.And the semipro clubs are not that much stronger on the field than the fully amateur clubs, because the fully amateur clubs have access to high-end college players who are generally better than the semipro players, and who cannot play for the semipro clubs due to NCAA rules. Most years the PDL and NPSL champions are entirely amateur teams, and the majority of their players are still active in college soccer. That's problematic not only because of the giant gap between the bottom of the USL and the champions of the level below, but also because if the top PDL and NPSL teams were promoted, they'd actually be forced to lose their best players. Depends on the USL club. Most of Sacramento's starters are believed to be in the 30-50k range, and a few others are probably up there too. But $20k sounds pretty typical for squad players (not stars) at an average USL club. Travel is even more important. A typical USL club may spend well over half a million dollars a year on travel alone. They're flying to most games, often into more expensive non-hub airports, and usually have to spend at least two nights in the city they're traveling to, and costs add up for even a minimal traveling party of 25 or so. The NPSL is mostly a bus league with only occasional air travel. Again, other countries promote clubs through local and regional leagues of gradually increasing size. That's potentially a little less feasible in the US, because even PDL and NPSL conferences are right around the largest possible geographic size for a league that relies on ground transportation. If you get any larger than those conferences, you're already relying on air travel for a significant portion of your away schedule.
From the spectator numbers I saw for inter university/college battles I wonder if there could be some collusion between the NCAA and the universities/colleges that gives the NCAA such power.
I think that my long years of being a fan of football in England has taught me that surprises can and do come along.......and fairly frequently, I feel that there are people who have only known the game here for a few years believe there to be a kind of 'status quo' that doesn't really show the 'whole story', yes money certainly helps, hell it helps a hell of a lot but when you have experienced the game here for as long as I have you do see the changes slowly but surely taking place. Manchester United are not (likely) to collapse like badly stacked cards (though even this is a possibility) but it (could) be that their 'dominance' wains (I believe it already is) and in the future they (may) be referred to as we refer to Liverpool (once all conquering dominant English club in the 1980's) or even as we refer to Huddersfield (once all conquering dominant English club in the 1920's), as a big, rich & popular club of course its likely to be some time if it happens or if it happens at all. Chelsea are already no longer THE moneybags of the Premier League, they may not (or may) be successful still in the next decade, I just get the sense that the 'journey' English football and English football clubs take (helped by pro/rel) isn't seen by some who perhaps only know English football from the last decade and assume that it will always be the same (same clubs in the same positions)
I've been alive for four decades and have watched English football for most of them. My team didn't win the league until days before my 16th birthday. It had been 26 years and they'd been relegated more recently than they'd been Champions. I know that things can change. Nevertheless, English football is very different now. Even when Liverpool were at their peak, teams could come up from Division 2 and legitimately compete for the title. By virtue of TV and Champions League money, we've moved into the same territory as the majority of professional football leagues. You say things change, but look at Spain, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Scotland, Turkey, Belgium, the list goes on.
The NCAA has all sorts of problems, but even if you get rid of amateurism, you still have the school year issue. College players couldn't play in the longer season. PDL and NPSL have abbreviated summer seasons.
Is this really a problem though? One of the reasons that college players pretty much have to play in PDL/NPSL is because the college season is so short. If the college season were doubled in length (either going with split Fall and Spring seasons or a Fall - Spring season with an extended winter break) then the need for college players to play in PDL/NPSL would be greatly reduced and they could extend their season as well.
That would be ideal, but it's going to be hard to make that happen. The NCAA don't care about soccer development. I know some coaches are pushing, but we'll see how long it takes to get real traction. That leaves the PDL and NPSL needing to restructure their business model. Not only will they be scrambling to fill rosters, but also coaching and training staff, since IIRC I believe many of those guys also work in college soccer during the school year. How many of those clubs have the capital resources to do that?
Very true, but I think it is only a matter of time before it happens. It seems to me that as MLS's development system improves, college soccer programs are going to need to up their game to make themselves more attractive to kids or risk the kids bypassing them completely and going directly into MLS's USL teams. I don't see this as a problem. I think it would be good for the overall US soccer ladder if PDL and NPSL weren't reliant upon college kids and staff. It might actually be better for them to rely upon local talent for that and improve their connection with the local community.
And yet you regularly go in circles with several people here that don't fit that description at all ....
A couple of years ago, the NASL commissioner claimed they were in talks with NPSL to implement pro/rel.. NPSL said that was the first they had heard of this, but supported it 100%. NASL slammed on the brakes and admitted they weren't in discussions with NPSL...
Perhaps, but it was on here somewhere that I argued with somebody concerning Spurs, a Spurs fan it was too, complaining that they would never again compete with the (then) so called big 4 and yet just one year later they finished 2nd followed up by another 2nd place finish, I would call that 'competing' now all of a sudden they are 'one of the big 4', who knows get the right people in for the job and it could be Everton next, we should take a leaf out of the Crystal Palace chairman's book, he is 'reaching for the stars', he said as much on the radio a couple of days ago, he isn't sitting and complaining that his club is forever throughout history going to be 'also rans'. I'm sure he realises its going to be tough, bloody tough because the clubs already there want to stay there and every other club is also fighting to 'get there', but at least he has the right attitude.
I wouldn't say they are established as one of the 'big 4' (it's more like 5 now with Citeh joining Man Utd, LFC, Arsenal & Chelsea). They've benefited from strong management and downturns in form for bigger clubs. However, while I agree that they have mounted challenges, I think the perception that they aren't strictly part of the colloquial "top teams" has given their challenges greater publicity. Had the top two in 2015-16 been Man United and Chelsea, with the same results and points totals, it wouldn't have been seen as an especially tight race. It's just that the idea persisted that Leicester could still fall off at any time, until they were almost on the cusp of sealing the title. Likewise, the title was Chelsea's to give away this season and while some iffy results almost let Tottenham back in, ultimately it was a fairly comfortable title win, sealed with two games to spare. It actually reminded me a lot of Blackburn briefly turning the 1993-94 season into a contest, after Man United looked set to walk away with it for much of the year.
Ah yes. The Bill Peterson pr*ck tease. It made the NASL the darlings of the ProRelforUSA crowd and fed the narrative about the USSF conspiring to make them fail. Though some try to keep said narrative going, it was thoroughly debunked when the USSF went out of its way to keep the NASL alive this season. Some have tried to pass this off as the USSF giving them "enough rope to hang themselves" but frankly, they were dangling from the gallows and the USSF closed the trap door.
The NCAA is nothing but a membership organization created by all of those universities and colleges. They can't collude with themselves.