The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

You didn't read my post. I did NOT get to 38 by adding in the current NASL. I don't think there is any chance of that, for one thing. Edmonton is more likely to go to the CPL. San Francisco is probably going out of business. The USL doesn't want the Cosmos, Miami, or Puerto Rico. I could see a few NASL teams going to the USL. If that happens the USL will blow right past 38.

Right now the USL has 30 teams. I pointed out that "There are 5 new teams slated to join in the next two years with more to come." There are 3 confirmed expansion teams for 2018 (Fresno, Las Vegas, and Nashville) and 2 more already for 2019 (Austin and Birmingham). That's 35 without including any NASL teams. I got to 38 by adding a few more MLS2 or new expansion teams by 2019.

I specifically said, "If DC and Dallas start MLS2 teams as expected by 2019 we could see a MLS/USL that looks like this:" Which led to my breakdown by type of 38 teams.

 

Sorry to skim. I'd note that we might be looking at 4 and certainly are looking at least at 2 of those 38 also being counted in MLS' 28. If MLS expansion does end at 28 (and IMO it will not, but that's just a gut feeling so worth nothing) the math works against the argument. I'm not saying you were making the case, but the 10 independent clubs could well be 6 or 7 or 8.

 

We shall see.

 

I don't think we can assume that 32 is the magic number as I don't see MLS wanting to adopt pro/rel even once the national footprint is totally built-out. Plus, it could be a LONG time before they expand beyond 28.

28 (either playing or at least announced) seems to be the clear goal prior to negotiating the next TV deal which would begin in 2023. The value of that TV deal depends upon having a complete national footprint that captures the vast majority of the nation's biggest media markets. Thus the rush to expand before negotiating the next TV contract. But once that deal is in place, there could be diminishing returns with teams #29-32. Would ESPN, Fox and Univision even re-open negotiations in the middle of the contract term simply because MLS added another team or two? Even if they did, would the revenue lift from the extra teams be enough to off-set the impact of dividing the pie into 32 slices instead of 28? Perhaps not. Therefore, I'm not convinced we're on a path to 32 anytime soon. The bigger focus will be allowing each club to use that extra TV money to build better teams via higher salary caps, more allocation money, more DNP spending, etc. or even just to help pay down the debt on all the new stadiums.

And even if MLS were to expand beyond 28 eventually and get to a "final" number of teams, that doesn't mean they'd endorse pro/rel. They would still oppose it because instability curtails owner investment, which is critical to a growing league. How do you get a guy like Robert Kraft to finally spend $250 million on a soccer-specific stadium if there is risk that 1 bad season could cause his team to be relegated to USL? So, MLS will continue to oppose it and USSF will most likely oppose it as well, meaning the only way it could happen would be if they were compelled to adopt pro/rel via an anti-trust lawsuit or as a condition from FIFA, neither of which are dependent on any specific magic number of teams in the top division.

 

The notion of a two tiered MLS is not unlikely, and as noted earlier, that's kind of what USL is becoming, tier two for MLS. But once MLS is at 32 clubs, we're talking about asking almost half the owners who have bought into the single league structure to simply agree (they all vote) to step down a level for that first year. I'm not sure that lack of ego and billionaire go together very often, but that alone would seem like a non starter to me, esp as the existing owners would realize that the scarcity they'd created was increasing the value of their investments.
MLS would be thrilled to reach 30 clubs and have 8 others pushing for membership. It's not really a threat until they top out and have another 30 rich, independent clubs, knocking on a locked door.
Also, one of the all time great BS tangents. One quibble, can you really calculate possibilities with chaos theory, i thought it was that you couldn't possibly calculate all the possibilities, but that's my Jurassic Park understanding of the stuff.

 

As for the two tiered notion, and using the Brazilian notion that Beau or someone wrote about recently here, a pro/rel idea:
After the league gets to 28 (a stated goal with folks already lining up), the league announces that it will increase further to 32, but the final four teams will 1. be exempt from the league fee because 2, they're going to have to be promoted from a second league. Those four spots will fill up over two years (no dispersal drafts, some lesser form of revenue sharing, some other crap, no idea i'm spitballing). after which one club will be promoted and one relegated each season, the twist being the original 28 who paid are exempt. Only those four spots offer the chance of up or down. If those four end up beign the four clubs in the conference championships, the one with the lowest point total still goes down. If they tie for the supporters shield, there's a tiebreaker to see which one goes down.
They're competing against everyone else, of course, but quite intensely against each other. The second league is fighting for that top spot.
If it turns out that element transforms footie in the US, the exempt will probably reconsider in a decade or two. If not, what's not broken won't be fixed.
But it doesn't punish those who were willing to take the original chance, which is a problem many who oppose pro/rel have with the notion. The original clubs lose a bit of money, but not that much. It doesn't change the structure of the existing and working system, at least not much. It does offer the joy of promotion and equal joy of relegations that advocates so dearly want. It creates a league of haves and have nots, another plus in the arguments of those advocating pro/rel, and might go so far to give them the permanent underclass of european leauges, which pretty much defines prestige. And, of course, it allows everyone, everywhere, to dream of a national title.
This would be a top division of 32, second division of, say, 18. This assumes there are 18 legit non-MLS affiliated clubs around. The MLS 2 clubs would be in the third, I guess.

 

^ You don't think they're actually thinking of pulling a fast one on the applicants, do you? Instead of your idea happening at 32, it will happen now at 28. They just announce that all 12 applicants start in a new second division, with the top 4 teams joining MLS the following season, then pro-rel the 25-32 spots based on results, with the two lowest placing teams relegated from MLS the following season and the top two teams from MLS2 (or would that be USL?) being promoted?

 

While I was fooled into thinking during a bit of "private time" today that this idea was mine, I see now that you are almost certainly correct. this is clearly their plan, they just want us to think we're coming up with it.
Devious. And here I was thinking the problem was that I didn't flush twice... Instead it was the stench of a vast conspiracy.

 

If you introduce pro-rel then you have to take the financial gloves off.

Imagine if big spenders Toronto lost Giovinco and Bradley through long-term injuries, Altidore lost form and the team started sinking. Any wealthy club outside the US and Canada would bring in some high quality replacements but not in MLS. Through pure bad luck Toronto would slip into MLS 2.

 

Not in my plan. Henceforth known as MyStupidPlan. MLS clubs that ponied up the cash, the originals, would be exempt.

 

=========================================
If we aren't going to have pro/rel anytime soon, I think the baseball set up works really well for us.
One reason, if MLS is going to be a "sellers" league in terms of talent, then you think we would really want to get the pipeline/pyramid set correctly. I took some liberty and added some examples for California area using past , present and future club names

MLS LA GALAXY PARENT CLUB
USL1 SD NOMADS "AAA"
USL2 LV LIGHTS "AA"
PDL VENTURA COUNTY FUSION "A"

MLS LAFC PARENT CLUB
USL1 ORANGE COUNTY SC "AAA"
USL2 SLO ROADRUNNERS "AA"
PDL SO CAL SEAHORSES "A"

MLS SJ EARTHQUAKES PARENT CLUB
USL1 RENO 1868 "AAA"
USL2 SF DELTA "AA"
PDL BURLINGAME DRAGONS "A"

MLS SACRAMENTO REPUBLIC PARENT CLUB
USL1 FRESNO UNITED "AAA"
USL2 ? ? ?
PDL CHICO ROOKS "A"

=============
Take your favorite MLS team and create your own farm system !!!!!

 

==============================
Agree, some of the MLS2 teams are pretty weak attendance wise. Also some new markets could be established.
I would think most would fall to USL2, this would open more room in USL1 for bigger markets not large enough for MLS, kind of how Cincy came to be.

Portland = Boise
Seattle = Spokane
Vancouver = Victoria
LAG = San Diego (Since LAFC apparently working with Orange County SC)
RBNY = Hartford
TFC2 = Hamilton
Swope/KC = Omaha
Orlando B = Jacksonville (if falls out of NASL)

=====
Reality is USL needs to look hard at "MLS2 teams" , affiliates and hybreds, along with upcoming expansion and properly place all these teams in USL1 (D2) and USL2 (D3) and get in line with what USSF gave as guidelines.
IF it does all this, then NASL ,NISA and NPSL really won't have much to complain about if the above leagues met the guidelines.

 

Why would MLS be a seller's league? If it isn't now, why would it be so as it continues to improve? At present, players who transfer out generally do so because they wish to, not because the league wants it as a revenue source. I don't see that changing, and I don't see the day when the league won't be willing to overpay for Americans.

 

----
Ok maybe 'seller' is not the right word for the situation. Big country, lots of players, we will unearth good players and if we get them in academy and up, someone other than MLS will be interested in them. So at that point, does MLS get the money on their investment? Sure, some will stay in the league, but others want to try oversees. Hopefully as some point, we can pay enough for the good ones to stay here.

 

I've put forth several ideas on the topic, all of which are dismissed by the bro/rel brigade because it totally doesn't set up that full-fledged pyramid that every other country has except that not every country has it.

These days, I've become more and more convinced we should have an NCAA model. Have maybe two tiers of pro soccer. In each tier, have multiple leagues and a national tournament. Like college sports, teams are free to schedule some games outside their conferences/leagues.

Opportunity for all. Relegation for none.

Simplify the Pro League Standards so you're required to have a decent stadium and a youth academy. (Specifics vary by tier.) And you have to have an ownership group (not a Single Rich Guy) with a considerable amount of money, and you need a performance bond. No need to be "national."

 

Only $200 million comes from US networks though I'm sure local TV deals are far more fruitful that MLS.

 

I think you would need a MLS 2, with teams purchasing a "class B" share in the league for say, $60 million.

That way MLS would have control over budgets and salaries as they do today preventing teams from overspending.

Parachute payments would be significant but the MLS 2 salary budget would prevent relegated teams from using the payment to gain significant advantage over their competitors.

The would be pro/rel playoffs, which should give MLS 1 teams an advantage. The playoff teams would be decided over multiple seasons which allows teams to have transitional seasons without immediate fear of relegation.

MLS 2 teams can only be promoted if teams already meet D1 standards and would be given 3 seasons to meet higher standards, including first-class stadiums that are owned and/or operated by the club. We don't want to go back to the days when most teams were playing in front of sparse crowds in football stadiums.

Similar parameters would apply to pro/rel from/to the 3rd division.

Basically, although this conforms to the requirements for an open pyramid, it would be as difficult as hell to gain promotion, protecting MLS 1 investors. Any team relegated from MLS 1 would thoroughly deserve it.

 

Okay, it's being dismissed because it really isn't pro/rel, but as pro/rel is not going to happen in the near term future in the US (say 20 years, and i don't go beyond that because by then sea level rise will have wiped out most coastal cities and sadly their clubs. so who knows what all else will change).
Pro/rel will not happen, at least involving the top of the pyramid, in the US. However, if what we want, really really want, is uh, egalitarianism, why not focus instead on the poor beleagured US Open Cup. US soccer would need to treat it as a loss leader at first, pouring enough money into it to make it worthwhile for all participants. We could turn the first round involving MLS clubs into a tourney league structure, ensuring that all all minnows get a fair nip at the heels (and eyes) of the capitalist elite fatcat clubs.
Now, this is an abject failure if clubs, all clubs, don't actually make a bit of money by playing in these matches. And the tourney, as it stands, has pretty close to a value of $0.
But it would be one way to ensure that each year, US soccer, despite it corporation-y leanings, would be crowning the best dang club in the country as king, or King-ish, or something that gives everyone a shot.

 

Plenty of leagues below the Football League had pro/rel prior to 1987.

 

It's certainly true that pro/rel within the Football League is a bit two-faced when you are busily re-electing your own members instead of promoting teams from below.

 

Essentially Ted isn't going to be happy until Joe's Pub FC has a theoretical path to MLS (ignoring the fact that if Joe's Pub FC's owner could put together a business plan for success in MLS, the league would let him in tomorrow and it would cost the owner less than a theoretical rise through the leagues would).