The thing about the pro/rel crowd is they're great at explaining what they hope to see or what they think could or should happen. But they don't address how. They have a vision for what things could look like in 10, 20 years, but don't explain the process to get there. If they do, it's in very vague terms based mostly on optimistic assumptions. That by doing this, this and this, a totally new phenomenon will occur that we haven't seen yet. Like all the hidden millionaires and billionaires just waiting for pro/rel before they jump in to MLS. Or a huge spike in interest in minor league teams that we've never seen before in any other sport in the US. There is vast evidence one can point at to suggest that pro/rel is a success in Europe. There is equally vast evidence one can point at to suggest that a closed, franchise system is a success in the US. However, there is also tremendous evidence that the conditions that would be needed to create, or be created by, a pro/rel environment would be very detrimental to MLS and American soccer in general. Because we have seen those conditions before. Over and over again. Free spending. Over-expansion, leading to inclusion of unproven markets that become a drag on the league. There is no credible explanation given as to why things would work differently now. You have to take it on faith that it will.
How is a closed system success in U.S.? No team has won CCL. The league is still the 20th in the world. Most teams aren't making money. Smart players move to play abroad.
he was talking about closed system in us sports in general, not specifically referencing the MLS. 1. umm okay? 2. 17 year old league. MLS nearly folded after its 5 years so its essentially a 12 year old league. 3. im pretty sure most are at least breaking even 4. duh
This is what i found: http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/3/12/1370301/the-recession-killed-profits-in-mls it's from 2010 but i doubt it changed a lot.
yeah i think im wrong about that, kinda just assumed tbh and i was too annoyed by the usa -antigua game today to go through the effort of fact checking
How many of those cities have teams with a 20,000+ seat stadium? A club playing out of a 10,000 seat high school stadium is not going to be able to compete. The salary cap wouldn't be lowered to that level. Even without salary costs, the costs of running an MLS club are huge, for more than in the UK. MLS is not a licence to print money, and the game isn't imprinted of the culture of the country enough to make rich men want to be seen as an MLS team owner. They don't dream of taking "their" team to the top flight, partly because "their team" doesn't actually exist in all probability, but also because it's not their favourite sport. Why haven't loads of rugby clubs formed in England, for example, to take advantage of the game turning pro? Where are the investors building stadiums in the big cities across the country? Take a look at the history of sports leagues in the USA. Look at the crippling attrition rate caused partly by playing in such a large country, and try to grasp why only including clubs who look likely to survive financially is considered a good idea. MLS once had 10 teams. It now has 19. Kind of kills the "you need an open shop" idea. The fact is, if somebody wants to join MLS, they can. They can present a business plan and if it all looks OK, they can join. They don't have to start off in an amateur league and work their way up over 10 years or more. In that sense, MLS currently is "open". It only becomes an issue when MLS gets to a size when they don't think it wise to accept any more expansion teams. Again, the USA isn't England. Culturally they only really care about pro sport at the highest level. Dropping out of MLS would be more like in the old days of clubs failing re-election, where crowds fell badly and clubs often folded. The USA is a very competitive sports market, which most major cities having multiple pro sports teams at the top level across a number of sports. Sports broadcasters, unlike in England, aren't struggling for sports to fill their schedules. smart business people just might also see that throwing away their investment in return for less security and most likely less revenue, wouldn't be the smartest move. Name the next biggest club set up in the last 100 years or so. If pro/rel makes setting up clubs so tempting, there ought to be quite a few. As above. You can see lower down in the game in England, the open system attracts a heck of lot of chancers taking a punt on success, with pretty dire consequences. And all could join if they wanted. Their owners just haven't thought it feasible.
2 years since the last post USA still doesnt have pro/rel system. The scenario OP put out is VERY interesting, plus a lot has changed in 2 years. Thread is still relevant.
Except that the proposal's not exactly different from what's been going on in the US for a decade. MLS has been "promoting" teams based on finances, and plenty of teams have self-relegated for financial reasons.
I'm not-- said this twice now-- but strangely, even tipsy as a clown, I can call out your BS-- and what's funny is-- you're so out of valid arguments you're actually making up mine to knock them down!
Team financing is exactly how promotion is being done in the US. When expansion opens up clubs from lower divisions have been able to move up to the top tier. For the players they will make a first tier club roster by earning it with their play. So you will not have a billionaire ownership in a new MLS standard stadium moving down without any TV rights and exposure from the first division. A winning club without the finanaces nor the stadium to play in the tier 1 will not have to magically find finances. The top plaers in the lower tier will be given chances to move to a first tier team. Now with minor league affiliates they can move withint their club