The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

Prospective Australian A-League teams pay a licensing fee as well. Apparently $5M at the moment.

 

I shouldn't call them franchise fees.

 

Though the only real difference between the MLS $100 million expansion fee and the required funds Eibar had to raise in La Liga was the amount. They both serve essentially the same purpose.

 

Not really. One was PART of getting into the top league, and isn't required of every team. The other is the ONLY THING it takes to get into the top league, and is required of every team.

 

Actually I believe it is required of every team in La Liga (or at least, every promoted team) its just that the majority of teams that are in La Liga don't have an issue achieving that so you never hear about it.

You second point (PART vs. ONLY) actually speaks to the biggest flaw in the pro/rel argument. They actually want to make it harder to get into MLS under the guise of making it "open". Right now if you have a sustainable business plan (owners, stadium, TV, etc.) you have a shot at getting into MLS. Essentially if you can convince the BoG you have the financial backing to make a real go of it. With pro/rel you'd have to establish the same kind of financial requirements (you can't have a top league where LA shows up to play at a high school field in Boise with minimal infrastructure) but now you're adding a competitive requirement on top of it. That makes it harder, not easier, for teams to get into MLS.

 

This is a good point as long as MLS is willing to expand, which because they don't use the double round robin (i.e. play each other team home and away) scheduling model, they can do without increasing the number of games played.

 

This is an overlooked part of the whole pro/rel argument. Let's say last year that there was pro/rel and the Cosmos and Ottawa qualified for promotion. Would either of them have qualified to make the jump? From the USSF division requirements: "each team must have and its governing legal documents must designate one principal owner with a controlling interest who owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team. Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least forty million US dollars (US $40,000,000) exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team and his/her primary personal residence. The principal owner, together with all other owners, must have a combined individual net worth of at least seventy million US dollars (US $70,000,000) exclusive of the value of ownership interests in the league or team and primary personal residences." Would Ottawa meet those requirements? We know the Cosmos wouldn't have met the stadium requirement. MLS could just say "nope" to both of those teams despite them winning promotion.

 

This is where the true zealots look like idiots. Many of them have no understanding what "promotion" really entails. In their mythical "Europe" (which really means "England") they could put together Pub Team FC and as long as they keep winning they'll eventually be hosting Man U and Arsenal and their home grounds. They don't bother to do any research to find out there are many, many teams across the world who win promotion but don't get promoted because their infrastructure doesn't meet the higher league's requirements. Lack of floodlights. Lack of media capacity. Lack of quality locker rooms. Lack of security. The list of what a team has to meet to move up goes on and on.

Because the game is so well supported in England this rarely comes up in the easiest league structure for English speakers to follow since almost any full professional team in England can easily move up at least to the Championship level and meet the requirements. It doesn't take much research though to find examples in Scotland of teams winning promotion but not going up due to a lack of facilities (though the occurrences there have even reduced in recent years).

That's why I like referencing Eibar when discussing this as it was a news story that got some significant English language press that's easy to reference, recent, and shows that its more than just sporting merit that goes into promotion.

 

J-League pyramid. If a JFL club (4th division) does not meet the standards of J-League stadia let alone budget needs, they can win that JFL title for 2-3 seasons in a row, but they will not get a J-League license (which means the true ability to get promoted from the JFL to J3). And those clubs in J3 barely hanging onto their club due to mismanagement? Yeah, candidates to be bumped down.

 

Oh no -- they understand the standards. They just assume that as soon as the pyramid opens, Pub Team FC will awash in so much sponsorship money and ticket demand that it'll have a downtown MLS-ready stadium within 18 months.

Because, as we all know from following D.C. United, building a downtown MLS-ready stadium is a piece of cake.

 

...and anyone can do what evil, corporate energy drink could do in NY. Hundreds of millions, politics....no problem.

Those bastards just cut out all of the real soccer people who were more than ready to do what they were!!! Those SOB's.

 

Of all the clubs in the NASL and USL, I'm pretty sure only Ottawa and Cincinnati currently meet USSF D1 requirements. Sacramento meets all requirements except the 15,000 seat stadium requirement, but has an stadium plan already approved and land already purchased by one of the club's owners, and Bonney Field is larger than several stadia that MLS has allowed as temporary venues. So that's three clubs in all of US/Canada lower league soccer that could be promoted.

The surest sign that pro/rel would be impossible to pull off here at this point is that every single lower-league club moving up to MLS has needed a full year and over $100 million in spending after paying the expansion fee, before actually competing in MLS.

 

Well, the market decided. The Cosmos weren't viable which is sad because 1) the team could have been in MLS and 2) there's a perfectly acceptable and viable model for the NASL, it just selected hubris over becoming a solid independent second tier league. Maybe over time that could have pushed MLS a little more too.

When I think of the economic arguments pro/rel uber alles folks make, they really don't add up. Generally, yes, if you remove barriers you will encourage more participants. However, that doesn't guarantee the quality of those participants. It also says nothing of the risk/reward. This is not the sort of enterprise that has the potential to net you a fortune. It's a vanity project and at its best a self-sustaining hobby. The idea that a magic supply of teams will create this groundswell of demand just doesn't happen in the real world.

They also ignore the practical limitations. When you point to "9000 clubs", there might be less than 10 who really have the ability to move up under ideal circumstances. You need money, you need the ability to find players, you need facilities, etc. Let's take two towns I know, one where I live and another where I coach. We'd never get beyond the summer amateur leagues even with the wealth we could draw from. Even if soccer was wildly popular and one of the towns fell madly in love, neither town has the ability to provide enough land for a stadium. We're built up and it would cost 10s of millions to acquire enough property. Beyond that, there is no way either community would approve a stadium project. Zero chance even without a dime of public money. Zoning, NIMBYs etc all dead in the water assuming you could buy enough property. That means you're limited in my towns, anyway, to NPSL or PDL shoehorned into the high school football stadium. Beyond that, it would have to move to where it could get what was required by a higher level. Oh and both towns are dry to boot so no game day beer!

 

Also, when you point to "9000 clubs," it's also worth pointing out that about 7,000 of them are youth clubs that field no senior team at all and most of the rest don't even have enough money to travel outside their city.

 

7000 understates that number too I think.

 

Um, the Fort Lauderdale Strikers are MLS ready as well. They have a 20,000 seat stadium and an ownership group that meets the financial requirements (even though they are cutting their losses at present).

 

Maybe you should read into Ft. Lauderdale.

 

The owners are cutting their losses, but that doesn't mean they don't meet the financial requirements. I forgot they did away with Lockhart Stadium, unfortunate. I went to many a high school football game and old-school striker games. The new field isn't ideal for soccer, but it meets the capacity requirement. The question was who meets the requirements, and they do.

 

They couldn't pay wages. That isn't cutting losses.

http://fiftyfive.one/2016/07/turmoi...rs-players-staff-checks-bounce-players-leave/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...-late-paying-players-0713-20160712-story.html

http://www.espnfc.us/north-american...erdale-strikers-in-financial-jeopardy-reports

 

Minority owner Ronaldo has a net worth of $320 million, which exceeds the requirements. The owners don't want to put any more money into the team. They may have expected either NASL to take off, or a deal with Beckham, or something else that didn't happen.

 

Which is why there will never be another Chivas USA.

 

No team or ownership group is MLS ready if they don't pay their players and vendors. It doesn't matter what the bank statement says on paper.

 

To my knowledge, isn't this somewhat what Liga MX does? Promotion and relegation isn't necessarily automatic in Mexico, from what I've heard.