Liga MX set to announce a 2 year expansion of pro/rel starting next year and expansion of LigaMX to 30 teams. 968969698455924736 is not a valid tweet id
There are good reasons for that approach and the "MLS originals" didn't really have much selection in terms of local "brands". They literally had to start clubs to populate the league on day one. Just from reading up on it, the landscape really was that barren and what did exist was shaky at best. Consider that the defacto top league in the country at the time was one of the bidders to become the major league that FIFA mandated and they objectively didn't cut it. Consider also that the MLS approach for selecting clubs seems to be fairly successful. In some cases they're doing what you suggest (Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, etc), while at the same time, the brand new Atlanta United was a phenomenal success last season. On the days they fully opened that 70k+ stadium, they filled it. LAFC in the meantime, despite the failure of their forerunner, Chivas USA, have just sold their full compliment if season tickets for this season. That's 17.5k. Their new stadium will hold 22k. I've already reached out to contacts at the Galaxy with the message that I hope they take this as a challenge to redouble their efforts.
I'm okay with it. It's the extreme disdain that bothers me. The type of Twitter warriors who think anyone who watches (or god forbid enjoys) MLS is committing some sin.
That's where I am. Not everyone has time to invest in watching a sport so if they pick Barca vs Atletico over Philly Union vs the Smurfs, I understand. Like you said, it's the disdain from those types that's the issue.
I don't understand the disdain for a league where owners are investing tens of millions of dollars annually............ https://www.rsl.com/post/2018/02/28/herriman-numbers https://www.rsl.com/post/2018/02/26/zions-bank-real-academy?autoplay=true Real Salt Lake's new training/team/academy facility. Price Tag: $78M. Also has a STEM Academy High School. LA Galaxy & Philadelphia Union spend more then $4M/year on their Academies and High Schools. Philly will have 2 Home Grown players making their MLS debuts on Sat in the starting lineup (both under 20). Another Home Grown Player on the Subs bench, and another academy product starting at Right Back. It also likely that another 18 year old academy kid will eventually win the starting LB spot during this season as well. Keep in mind the Union's academy is less then 8 years old. The Union as a team have only been playing since 2010, announced in 2008 on this day. I'd say that is pretty good progress. Austin Trusty and Derrick Jones featured prominently on last years US U20 WC team.
Because would rather complain about what wasn't working in 2009 than acknowledge what's working in 2018.
How much do you think it comes from the fact that they resent the US not having their own equivalents of the UEFA Super Clubs or an elite National Team? My buddy that I have Galaxy tickets with, who had little-to-no interest in soccer before he met me, expressed the opinion several years ago, that for soccer to take off in this country, the nats and league must be the best in the world. Because (in his terms) "Americans don't like not being the best".
MLS teams will always be second best to the big UCL outfits. It's not a level playing field. But the selling point for soccer is that it isn't your parents' sport.
Nice to learn that I'm not the only one that tells the socalled superleague is a fata morgana and americanization of soccer is a threat to its existance: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/02/28/sports/soccer/28reuters-soccer-germany-dortmund.html " The protests were also a sign German football needed to be wary about over-commercialisation and making fans feel that they are being treated as customers of their favourite club rather than part of their fabric and identity, he added." " He said that while it was accepted that clubs like Qatar-owned Paris St Germain were now paying enormous sums to buy star players from rival clubs, a 'Super League' where the "top, top" European clubs played each other still looked unlikely. There were big questions about how teams would qualify for such a league and whether clubs in it would continue to play in their national leagues."
Geezubus Krise! I wasn't aware that the "americanization" of soccer was happening. Personally I want all the games to happen in 5k stadiums in the snow and involve gunshots. I plan on lighting myself om fire at halftime, regardless of what's going on. Of course, we need to find some isolated spot in the woods first to beat the shit out of each other. And someone please record it. I hate when we beat each other to bloody pulps and it doesn't make it to YouTube. TL; DR GTFO with "americanization" of soccer. A whole lot of what Europe and South America do is dumb as f##k.
That, contrary to what some on here have claimed, a closed European super league seems to becoming less likely as time goes on?
My point is that American soccer (assuming that's the US and Mexico) doesn't influence the rest of the world. It's the other way around. No one in Europe is going to scrap pro/rel, they aren't going to have a salary cap, they aren't going to go to a split or summer schedule. The woes of European football are uniquely theirs. The haves and have nots. The idiot hooligans. The big money. Those are European problems, not problems in America.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons behind Liga MX wanting to abolish traditional pro/rel was that's it's owners had sat and watched as MLS teams roared above most of them in terms of valuations and Mexican owners felt this had a lot to do with relative stability that a closed league brings. Other leagues must be looking over their shoulders too and wondering how teams in a mediocre league, with ridiculously high costs and paltry TV revenues are starting to match them in terms of overall valuation. So maybe global football will become Americanized, as leagues find ways to preserve the status of their bigger teams. Forbes valuations, June 2017 in millions. Global Manchester United $4,583 Barcelona $3,635 Real Madrid $3,580 Bayern Munich $2,713 Manchester City $2,083 Arsenal $1,932 Chelsea $1,845 Liverpool $1,492 Juventus $1,258 Tottenham Hotspur $1,058 Paris Saint-Germain $841 Borussia Dortmund $808 A.C. Milan $802 Atlético Madrid $732 West Ham United $634 Schalke 04 $629 Roma $569 Inter Milan $537 Leicester City $413 Napoli $379 MLS LA Galaxy $315 Seattle Sounders $295 Toronto FC $280 New York City $275 Orlando $272 Bournemouth were the lowest valued club in the Prem in 2016/17 at $150 million. I
No, he's not. Your name, please. I could respond in full to your post if you either tell me your name or refer to me by my screen name. Otherwise , you're just being an asshole...... again. 969092309810864130 is not a valid tweet id "Which begs another question many soccer fans in Tulsa have asked, why did the Tulsa Athletic have to leave its home stadium in the first place?" https://t.co/2W7t0q6WHP— Rufnex (@TulsaRoughnecks) February 26, 2018 #ProRel4USA
Although I believe that promotion and relegation has benefits, I still draw the line when a club's infrastructure and fan base club hurts the league financially. We've seen the rise of Burton, woohoo for freedom and human rights! But what did the 800 fans who followed them in the Conference South got to do with that? If they wanted Championship football why didn't go 10 minutes down the road to watch Derby. Indeed how many were actual Burton fans and how many were Derby fans wandering in when their team weren't playing at home? And ow many Burton supporters actually wanted league football? Maybe they preferred a small club playing in the lower reaches of the system. Anyway, now 2,000 Burton fans get to watch their team in a shiny new stadium outnumbered 2 or 3 times by visitors. Meanwhile loyal 8,000 Luton fans got to see their club relegated out of the league due to financial shenanigans they had nothing to do with. Looking at the attendances of these non-traditional and/or phoenix clubs shows the economic impact of an open system on the league. Championship 24. Burton Albion League One 20. Wimbledon 24. Fleetwood League Two 15. Newport 17. Cheltenham 19. Forest Green 20. Stevenage 21. Crawley 22. Barnet 23. Accrington 24. Morecambe I estimated very roughly that the reduction in away fans caused by bigger lower division teams being replaced by smaller non-traditional costs Notts $250,000 a season. So in looking at pro/rel I think you have to draw the line at some level, especially if there's likely to be a financial impact on existing teams.
As for those Tweets. It just points out how big of pretentious a-holes that the Motorick fighting interns are. People were pointing out that them saying that if you're from marginalized group X you should be for pro/rel because you're from a marginalized group. Closed systems aren't discriminating against people based on their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. MLS has players from all walks of life, from nearly every continent, with different religious beliefs. That's the problem right there; pro/rel truthers are trying to make moving teams up and down a ladder a fight for civil rights. It's stupid and insulting to those who've actually sacrificed for civil rights.
I'm not so sure. The big clubs may determine that the UCL needs to "streamline" and "maximize value" by locking in the big clubs and dispensing with the pesky first-round qualifiers and so forth. I would hate to see that, but I can see the wheels turning. It's a very lucrative competition, and the people with money aren't going to just shrug their shoulders and accept a decline in profitability. They're going to look to innovate and keep the revenue stream running. Supporters and fans care WAY more about tradition than shareholders and billionaire owners do.
I'm always amused at the idea that pro/rel, the crab bucket of sports, is supposed to provide a level playing field. I think that's one of the reasons the European Super League didn't catch on - every team would face a whole slate of financially secure teams on the schedule, instead of half or fewer, depending on the league. Seriously, how quickly would Rangers and Celtic turn into the Browns and Bengals?
Because they're Burton, not Derby, supporters and probably were back when they played in the Southern League, Midland Division when I first saw them play. The shiny new stadium that was built in their non-league days. And so what if they are outnumbered? Why should a club that was involved in financial shenanigans be propped up by the Football League at the expense of a likely better-run club? Except, as I've pointed out to you several times, the percentage increase in League Two attendance from the season before pro/rel was introduced to/from the Football League exceeds the percentage in the divisions above. In other words, the added interest that pro/rel has created, exceeds the negative effect of some less well-supported teams being promoted. You haven't demonstrated a financial impact.