Because the prospect of potentially being in a relegation battle at some unspecified time in the future is a great motivator.
The US won the gold medal in men's basketball at Rio 2016. There is no pro/ rel in the US. The US finished ahead of countries that have pro/rel.
The US failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup. There is no pro/rel in the US. The US finished behind countries that have pro/rel. I guess two can play this completely pointless game.
The saddest thing about the discussion in this thread... Pro/Rel isn't just about money, or big cities vs. small cities, or hedge funds and deep pockets, or how well a national team will or will not do in big competitions, or the potential financial and competitive collapse of this or that team, or, or, or....... It's about the people who love the sport, you, me, the kids, the old men and ladies. It's about passion. It's about connecting your community with the sport and other communities around yours. Soccer is, always has been, and always will be about way more than a handful of greedy carnival barkers who are for sale to the highest bidder. I don't pretend to know fully why soccer is so much more than other sports. I have been a player and fan of many of the American sports; and yet, for some reason, I lost interest in all but soccer. And in this country, crisscrossed by highways, train tracks, airplane routes and city after city after city, and hundreds of millions of people, and tens of millions of soccer fans, and existing stadiums, new stadiums on the way, and hundreds of people with money who love the sport and want to bring the professional club version to their corner of this amazing country...... The only thing holding back Pro/Rel is putting a common sense living outline forth and then slowly filling it in as cities, and more importantly people, all these millions of soccer loving people in this country build teams and stadiums and fields and dreams. The very idea that Americans, in America can't do something as simple as build a tiered soccer league(s), is one of the most insanely laughable ideas ever put forth. We build skyscrapers, 2,500 mile long highways, airplanes that rise straight up and then break the sound barrier. Who in the world do you people who don't think Pro/Rel can be built right now in America, who do you think you're talking at? Jeezus, give it a rest. Putting together Pro/Rel here, now, would be like building a simple house out of Lego's. For jump'n jeeber's sake, it has to be difficult and mind warping to repeatedly try to convince others how difficult or impossible something so easily doable, like Pro/Rel is.
I dream that someday all the mom-and-pop clubs in the U.S. have a crack at reaching a true top flight, where two teams propped up by billions of dollars of foreign cash are the only realistic title contenders even before the first kick of the season.
I doubt anyone on either side of the pro/rel argument feels differently about their love for the game. Love for the sport and a team can exist outside the pro/rel debate. My childhood rec league didn't have pro/rel. My high school league didn't have pro/rel. I fell in love with the old NASL Atlanta Chiefs and there was no pro/rel then. Pro/rel is merely one way to run a sports league, and it is only connected with soccer due to the historical growth of the game long before professional ball looked anything close to what we have today. There is no God-given law that says "Soccer must equal pro/rel." (And I say that hoping the pro/rel aspect of my favored European leagues never goes away.) Which means if one is an advocate for pro/rel for the sake of pro/rel then you must plead the same for the NFL, for the NBA, MLB, etc. Don't simply hold it over the heads of MLS. The same American freedom you're citing also endows a business or business collective some freedom to shape their own identity and operations. Thus, if the owners of MLS teams decide they wish to operate under a single entity, non-pro/rel umbrella, then so be it. The very idea that just because some people want it to happen they think it should happen is insanely laughable. This isn't a matter of civil rights. I would love it if my local Italian restaurant options could be promoted to something other than Olive Garden. I certainly think a community of 180k deserves better. Alas.
What's also annoying is that Eredivisie players (present and former) were the ones that got Sweden, Denmark, Morocco and Peru to the Worl Cup. From Feyenoord 5 players go to Russia with 4 countries
And three of the four countries that finished ahead of us in CONCACAF have most of their key players in MLS. When the US plays Costa Rica, Panama, or Honduras, it's rather common for the Central American opponent to field more MLS players than the US.
Yeah we've seen the rise of Panama and Honduras coincide with Costa Rica's resurgence all thanks to the MLS. Yay
'kin hell! It took over 100 years just to create a stable, financially solvent, national soccer league, give it time. Meanwhile the idea of Galaxy being replaced by the Deltas is laughable
Which in the long run should help CONCACAF and the USMNT by deepening the quality of competition in the region. I'm not delusional or expecting us to morph into CONMEBOL but simply having more opportunities for players to train and play at full-time levels will greatly aid the talent pool in the region.
Again, you simply don't know what would have played out and what the status of individual teams would be if pro/rel existed rather than the closed structure we have now. But I certainly agree it would be tremendously difficult to change from the current closed structure to an open structure. As for San Francisco Deltas, my understanding is that San Jose claims San Francisco is part of their "territorial rights". Just another example of why allowing a league to operate as an effective cartel is bad for the sport as a whole.
*tempts fate* a) I understand the concept of territorial rights and how it applies within the MLS context, which essentially means if MLS were to introduce another team in the SF area they would have to consider the affect on SJ, which is currently reliant on media revenues from the Bay area. Otherwise these "rights" don't extend beyond the league, so if the US pyramid were opened such conditions would be dismissed or other compromises enabled. Given that I'm left to ask, how does this constitute an example of bad policy as you're implying? b) Are the power clubs and leagues in Europe considered a cartel? They pursue and enforce financial measures that tip the balance of power in their favor so as to remain distinct from the rest of the pack. Are these measures likewise criticized? If not then what's the distinction?
Why is it reasonable that San Jose has territorial rights at all? Additionally, how is it helpful to the professional sport as a whole that they have those rights? As it stands, for San Francisco to convince MLS to accept its cartel admission fee, it would seemingly require some kind of negotiation with an existing team in MLS. Pfft; some "incentive" for San Francisco to improve themselves. Not sure what measures you are specifically referring to, but to me it seems that they are more "free market" than anything else. And, btw, I have been consistently critical on this thread of the financial effect an expanded Champions League has had in helping to cement the tops of domestic leagues.
MLS is a business, and they're executing a business model as they're completely allowed to do. The territorial rights are part of their internal agreements within MLS, and are soft at that compared to those for say, MLB teams. It's merely a business measure wholly within and among MLS teams, as part of their agreed upon single-entity structure, whereby they're working to maximize the benefits for all members. It doesn't mean SF is outright prohibited, merely that the collective ownership would want to ensure that's the best option for them to admit given the nature of their operation. If someone in SF wants to have a soccer team they're free to do so. If they want to be part of a particular existing business called MLS they need to play by that businesses rules. They've no right to expect the rules change anymore than I get to expect Burger King to stop making food I don't like. Fair enough.
This is true, to be fair. With all due respect, you're romanticizing the concept. If the general public are passionate about having a local team that represents their community, then nothing stops them from starting one. If the issue (as I've heard stated many times) is that they don;t have a "path to D1, so why bother?", then it's not about having a club in the community. Yet the most-watched, best-attended teams in the game, demand a fortune in ongoing personnel and infrastructure costs. It's probably that at its best, it's one of the most entertaining and interesting sports to watch, unless you're obsessively preoccupied with the number of goals scored in a game. Well I keep asking the same question: if pro/rel is such a no-brainer, if it is so easy to set-up, so risk-free and if the benefits are so colossally greater than the closed system, then why doesn't anybody seem to have any interest in proving the concept by starting their own league under that model? We're frequently told that MLS is substandard enforced mediocrity that fails to tap into some huge groundswell of soccer support, that if engaged in the domestic league, would shoot US soccer into the stratosphere. Yet despite all of this, the answer I constantly receive to this question is that ambitious entrepreneurs see no hope of catching MLS because it has a D1 designation.
Yes, MLS is a business. However, you're really not addressing my point, which was that territorial rights are "another example of why allowing a league to operate as an effective cartel is bad for the sport as a whole". Do you think territorial rights are a good thing for the sport as a whole (and San Francisco Deltas in particular)? "Because they can" really isn't an answer to that.
This is something which in Europe wouldnot be allowed and I'm sure if a player challenges that in front of the US Supreme court it would fall as a breach of the fundamental rights of a free citizen of the USA. But it's also an excess of the franchise/closed league set up. Then mls could do what I saw on tv that happened to a big 4 athlete, that challenced the league (forgot what sport he was in) , by not hiring/contracting him while he's a top star. It's another excess of the franchise/closed league. The grip of the league on the clubs is such it can force this behaviour. In th European context such a player would never be excluded by other clubs. There are always clubs willing to sign a quality player. The number of clubs are simply too big to control them with unwritten behaviouristic rules.
I don't really see the connection between pro/rel and qualifying for the world cup, pro/rel would however turn the US league into something more interesting to the rest of the world that's for sure, it would perhaps stop it resembling a bunch of 'friendly' games and give it some serious competition.