I have always thought that lack of continuity is part of the reason soccer has been slow to catch on in the states. Club fandom passed down through generations is a powerful thing. Having a local team with a storied history means something. In Europe promotion and relegation insures the continuity of clubs that can't cut it in their current league. Instead of closing up shop, they slide down the pyramid to a lower league and continue to play. I know we're not ready for performance based promotion & relegation in the US. But we basically already have finance based promotion. The Sounders, Timbers, and Impact have all been promoted recently based on financial and local market strengths. Couldn't we have a similar relegation approach for teams that are threatened with being shut down? Here are a couple examples: There's been recent talk that MLS may move the Revolution to Baltimore and rebrand them until the Kraft family can arrange for a soccer specific stadium (at which point they would start up another team called the Revolution). Similarly in the NASL there is talk of shutting down Minnesota Stars FC because the league can't find an NASL level owner for them. In the interest of building a deep and loyal following over the long run, why not just relegate the clubs down to a level that is manageable until they get their act together? The Revs could play in the less costly NASL until they get their stadium situation squared away. Maybe NASL could sell the Stars to a USL Pro or NPSL level owner for now. I first heard of this idea in an article about the upcoming women's 1st division league. They plan to implement this approach, and it occured to me that it might be a good idea overall. Just throwing it out ther for discussion, consideration, debunking, what have you...
Where would they play, given that their current stadium is likely to be a big factor in their financial shortcomings?
With out promotion/relegation the game will flounder. Coaches, players and front office staffs need to be held accountable for there performances. This is how soccer traditionally and culturally works. If the MLS believes that a NFL format is the answer they are gravely mistaken. The MLS has done very well with soccer specific stadiums, unfortunately that is only a start. Loads of players have been alienated do to the lack of competition. The professional clubs need to be the leaders in American professional soccer. Scores of cities dating back to the 70's have supported professional soccer, but you can not fool fans in America who know the game. The USSF is failing immensely with there lack of leadership and vision. Example, the Rochester Rhinos use to draw 12, 000 a game, and now they are lucky to get 2,000 a game do to the fact that there supporters know that there is no possible way to play in the top league. There are many cities across America that are in the same position. The USSF/MLS will argue that it's all about television and other excuses that America is to big of a country. Nonsense! The whole structure needs to change for America to embrace the sport. Professional soccer is for big and small cities alike, from the first division to the fourth division. Competition will improve between players and clubs to truly weed out the best American soccer players. Quite a few clubs in the MLS are struggling as I write. Change is needed for a proper domestic structure. Professional soccer clubs need to be at the for front.
Why isnot there a FA at state level and the USSF as the Country wide umbrella? In that setting you can have on a state level leagues like we have with all the benefits. It would also be great I think to have state rivalry with state born players competing for the national state title. Wonder how emotions would flare with Texas vs New York
I completely agree. I can think of another team, the Charleston Battery, who play in a 5k seat stadium, but are a very successful club w/ great fan support. Why should stadium size prevent them? Do they have to have a 30k seat facility? I don't think this should be the measure, but on-pitch success should be the only real consideration. I suspect it is fear of taking a risk on their investment by the owners that prohibits the implementation of relegation in US soccer. If this is the major impediment, then I wouldn't expect relegation/promotion to ever be made 'the law of the land'. I'd like to see Fifa force this practice somehow, if team owners are unwilling. By, say, prohibiting the national teams to compete in the WC, if necessary.
Rangers of Scotland was relegated do to poor financial leadership. We would think a club that has an average attendance of 50,000 a game and loads of political clout would some how manipulate the situation in staying in the Scottish primer league. Hats off to the powers in Scotland for sticking by there principals. Rangers were not demoted to the second division they went down to the third. Rangers not playing in the top league must surely hurt Scottish football, but in Scotland they are trying to clean up there domestic league and hold everyone involved accountable. In regard to the Charleston Battery, it is a shame that they are not given the opportunity to move up divisions. The owners must wonder if it is worth continuous financing with really no light at the end of the tunnel. Also, the supporters of the Battery would probably double in number if this was a reality in American soccer. It is not all about attendance either, clubs in smaller markets need to be given the opportunity to sell players in regard to commerce, from there youth system all the way through to the senior team. Many clubs around the world are just set up for commerce, buy and sell.
Unfortunately, the current USSF regime has FIFA completely bamboozled. FIFA also does not care what is going on in American professional soccer. What FIFA does know is that the United States is a great television market with very rich television companies that pay the millions for World Cup rights. FIFA also knows that America is a brilliant country to host another WORLD CUP do to stadiums, TV and attendance. What FIFA, does not know, is that there is a huge soccer culture in America that would embrace a proper domestic structure. The USSF/MLS do not want to let the cat out of the bag in regard to a proper domestic structure because they want to eat the whole pie for themselves and do not want to share. Charleston, Richmond, Rochester, Tampa Bay and we could go on and on about cities with great soccer followings that are being left out of the loop because there owners are not Anshults or Kronke. This all falls on the shoulders of our great USSF leadership. Guilati and company will come out with all of these great MIT reports and so forth ON HOW AMERICA IS A DIFFERENT SPORTING LANDSCAPE. NONSENSE! Maybe if we structured professional soccer properly we would give are great counterparts here in America something to think about.
Promotion/relegation is controlled by the USSF/MLS. Can some one please explain, how are the USSF elections held, when and where and who has the voting power. I think I have a pretty good idea, but maybe some one can clarify. I believe it's the youth vote all the way through to the professional game. Is it done through regional voting? Maybe some one can give me the facts about this. It seems that this current regime has been in power for a long time. If we want promotion/ relegation the election has to be won.
Everybody says we do it better than other countries, has anyone seen the list of defunct minor league teams in the U.S. it's staggering, those potential fans have no outlet sincethey could be hundreds of miles away from a MLS team.
Great responses. I just fell like, much as I support the MLS and everything about what it has done for the sport in this country, I'm still being held back in my affections for this great game (in the US, not internationally) largely due to this issue. It just feels like we are being stuck with this bastardized kind of game in this country and the moneymen/US soccer leadership absolutely will not let it change.
I realize they have, um, 'corruption issues' but I just don't know what else can be done. The game in this country desperately needs promotion/relegation at ALL levels.
I can tell you that the owner of the Battery is not a fan of the current structure of the system, however, he is very realistic about soccer in America and that the system won't change. He has funded the team for 20 years now.
Promotion/Relagation won't be happening. Personally, I would like to see it happen some day, but it won't ever happen.
I would rather have things the way they are here than over certain International Nations. I want to know that the league I am watching is fair and not fixed like in Italy and Turkey for example.
No, it doesn't. Pro/rel is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the US. Specifically, pro/rel was instituted in various countries to deal with the problem of too many teams and not enough division 1 slots. That is not the situation in the US. If you disagree, please point out what soccer teams in the US are being unfairly kept out of MLS (or any other division in US soccer).
How fair is it in charging a owner $100 million to be in MLS? just because they can, hell they don't even have to have a team, just pay to play. It's not about merit of play just $$$ and then what's even more ironic is you pay to get in and they you share the spoils, now that's whacked. I would rather have some teams go down and then find investors, then what's been happening since the beginning of soccer in U.S.... 50 or more defunct teams.
What does fairness have to do with this discussion? But, if we're talking fair, how is it fair to let someone waltz into MLS for free, while the existing owners have spent hundreds of millions of dollars getting the league off the ground? Look, no one is being forced to pay the MLS expansion fee. I'm not sure why you're all upset about some super-rich guys having to pay money to get into the league.
I'm not pissed just that it's a "exclusive club" and that's not what soccer is about. all over the world soccer is a sport first then a business...in U.S. it's a business first then a sport.
It's not an exclusive club. Who is being kept out of MLS that deserves to be in the league? Give me one example of a division 1 quality soccer team in the US or Canada that is not in MLS. As for your second point: so what? We're pretty good at running professional sports in this country. Why should we copy other countries in this area?
Well San Antonio is a good team. So what? because other countries do it better: look at EPL, Champions League, hell the top 6 leagues in Europe. MLS is trying to play catch-up and it's not working, year after year more fans watch EPL and that's that. MLS might be stable in it's structure but it's a detriment to evolution of soccer in lower division. Hypothetical: If there was pro/rel and MLS is such a kickass league, wouldn't a club find investors after it's relegated.
Are you really going to claim that San Antonio is MLS quality? Nothing against them, but its a team full of guys who aren't good enough to play in MLS. The reason other countries have better soccer leagues than the US is because soccer is more or less the only professional sport of any significance in those countries. And they have a century or so head start on pro soccer In the US. Oh, and they have a lot more money. The fact that they have pro/rel has absolutely zero to do with their higher level of quality. And in answer to your hypothetical: no, finding credible investors would be tougher in a league where teams can be relegated after one bad year. The current model is much more attractive to investors because it limits their risk.