At one time Kartik and Brian Quarstad were THE guys for lower division soccer in the US.. Really, they were the only guys that covered lower division soccer in the US. Because Kartik was one of only a few people covering lower division soccer, people overlooked a lot of his idiosyncrasies, but once he shutdown his blog and joined NASL, that ended. Since leaving NASL, he's become a crap thrower and does a lot of the "I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but there are enough people that are saying it is, so we should look into it!"
What exactly are Commisso and Silva trying to accomplish here? If your league isn't sanctioned by the USSF............none of your players can play internationally. How exactly is this going to help soccer in America? More importantly, how is this "Pro" league that doesn't have any standards going to raise a consistent flow of money to spend on player development over a sustained period of time? This whole soccer war that Commisso/Silva are waging is a perfect reflection of the current political climate in our nation...........lots of sound and fury, and very little listening to all sides and consensus building.
I honestly think that what will happen in the end is that Detroit and Chatta both drop out after next season and hopefully don't fold, then the remaining clubs will join NISA. I seriously doubt the whole fall schedule thing will work out but more power to them for trying it. I'm going to love seeing the attendance for a Cosmos game in Coney Island in Dec. I'd be shocked if you get more than a thousand brave souls for that fixture.
Sorry for the mix up, that's what I meant to say. I sent you the link to the poster's summary. The whole convo is interesting
Updated. It's also behind a login wall, but in fairness, the link is just a repost of the first part of the article.
The two sides are those with facts and those without. If you find that interesting, well more power to you.
Meh, it's all a matter of semantics. I doubt they mean they'll be playing into December. It's more likely to be a split season like NASL had. They'll just call the Fall season the start of the year and the Spring season the end of the year.
The AFL and NFL used to be competitors too. NASL fielded a team that beat MLS' top team last year. Just because NASL wasn't at MLS level, doesn't mean that there wasn't competition.
I guess that means the Southern Conference is competition to the ACC in basketball....Wofford beat UNC. Wake me up when NASL or whatever league starts taking top players from MLS teams. P.S. I see you joined today to tell us NASL is/was competition to MLS. Welcome aboard.
MLS poached teams and personnel from NASL. That's a competitive situation if there ever was one. MLS and USSF both knew that NASL's franchise agreements required sanctioning at D2, they knew that the practical effect of their decision to end the waiver would kill that league. Don't play semantics. The outcome has already come to pass, none of this is theoretical. Btw, I'm not taking sides. I am not a fan of MLS or NASL, rather someone who wondered what the heck happened to USSF after last October. Frankly, I had no idea this was going on until Shalala posted a celebratory tweet about her time on the board, so I took the time to read every minute that mentioned her for a decade and spend 90 minutes interviewing the top legal expert in soccer matters at UCLA - whom everyone has said is MLS friendly - to evaluate the grounds for their Officer's and Director's lawsuit in NY state court. Donna Shalala sat on the USSF board as an Independent Director in charge of compliance (with conflict of interest standards, and to set the policy) which she not only blithely allowed to continue with a massive conflict, but which she violated awfully by attempting to do business with MLS. The Independent part of Shalala's directorship meant that she should've had ZERO business with professional soccer. During that interview, I recalled Shalala's efforts to build an MLS stadium, which led me to Nexis and to the City of Miami Clerk's office which confirmed based on the AP and Miami Herald's reporting of her comments and the Mayor's reaction, that she was an illegally unregistered lobbyist. I know that every person on this board is gonna take a pro-MLS and pro-USSF stance, but the facts are plain. There are problems, and this is apparently the root cause. USSF is dependent on a sports marketing company (SUM) owned by the MLS ownership group, and SUM has received a decade's worth of no-bid deals while allowing a conflict of interest policy that excluded MLS (which is going to be a hot fight in court) and failing to report her own conflicts of interest (which is just a fact and going to sink their case). If USSF bid out their TV deal in the last 5 years, they'd have gotten a massive raise, as the rights to live sports events have grown far more valuable in the last few years. USSF is a 501c3 charity under the IRS code and this is a very important issue because as anyone can see on the IRS website: To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.
That's an improper analogy. FYI, the NCAA is also a sports governing body, and they are also facing a major anti-trust lawsuit right now, for different reasons than USSF.
Lol. I saw a few clicks from here to my post and it led me to this thread. But don't worry, Twitter is not slow today.
He has 51k followers on Twitter so he must be a somebody....or he is someone who knows how to copy an image and type whatever screen name they want.
Sure, and the Tampa Bay Rays are "poaching personnel" from the Durham Bulls. (I suppose a better analogy would be that the UFC is "poaching personnel" from King of the Cage, though the way the UFC is going these days, King of the Cage might be a better place to be.) But let's clear up one thing here. *MLS* didn't "end the waiver" for the NASL. All MLS-affiliated board members were out of the room for that one. You can make a case that Shalala was compromised -- for sake of argument, let's just say she was. That leaves a lot of board members, most of whom actually voted to continue the NASL's D2 sanction the year before -- AGAINST the advice of task force. See the Jan. 6, 2017 entry on this timeline, which will also give you a lot of the background. https://rantingsoccerdad.com/2017/10/24/timeline-how-did-nasl-dispute-come-to-this/ USSF has governance issues out the wazoo. But the NASL had its own issues, made its own bed, etc. They could work things out and re-form as a D3 pro league, but they'd apparently rather take their clubs to what's basically D4 and beat up on a bunch of amateurs.
Well then I'm curious as to the strength of a possible lawsuit between the Long Island Ducks (Independent Baseball) and MLB /NY Yankees and Mets. I mean they have a product that's comparable to MLB (in the lightest possible way) but NO ONE cares and they don't do the same business I mean obviously MLB is colluding against them, right?
Poach: to trespass, especially on another's game preserve, in order to steal animals or to hunt. Obviously that term can be used in other contexts but the central idea is clear. The poacher initiates the action. The animals or objects being poached are the prize being gained in the process but are fairly passive in the process. Which NASL teams did MLS take an action to remove from the NASL? Montreal? The Impact joined the original split from the USL in 2009 but that was a temporary thing since they were announced as a MLS team in 2010. That was the culmination of negotiations that started in at least 2008. Hardly poaching. Minnesota United? That team left the USL as the Stars and was in the NASL from the beginning in 2010. In 2015 they were announced as an MLS expansion team. That was not the result of poaching, however. Minnesota United, by all accounts, wanted to stay in the NASL but were worried about a different bid in Minneapolis to join MLS by the Vikings' owners. Minnesota United decided on their own to make the bid for an expansion slot to get into MLS. That was no sure thing with the two local groups vying for a potential spot. And then there was.....nobody. No other NASL team wound up in MLS. Atlanta United is in MLS but the Atlanta Silverbacks of the NASL folded in 2015. The team was owned by the league at that point. The United group started inquiring about a MLS franchise in 2008, way before the creation of the NASL, but wasn't granted a spot until 2014. What actual MLS poaching are we talking about? Obviously some teams jumped from NASL to USL: Carolina, Tampa, Indy, and Ottawa. (The Scorpions folded and San Antonio FC is a completely different team). Which of those were "poached" in that the USL went looking to take them away from the NASL?
Well, no. It's only a competitive situation if the poaching goes both ways. That's literally the definition of competitive.