This subject probably has come along before, but I could not find any current thread that does. Apologies if there is any. As an European I have never understood the American way when it comes to the format of your soccer leagues (and probably all your major leagues, but this is a soccer forum), but since I am not brought up with this sport tradition I might miss the advantages. I have the following questions: 1. Why are the MLS clubs not independent from the league itself? When the league goes defunct, all the teams in it dissapear as well. I believe it would be great if NY Cosmos, LA Aztecs and Tampa Bay Rowdies were still around. Wouldn't it be better for American soccer if the clubs would exist independent of the league so they can survive when the league is wound up, to join another league later on? 2. How can a soccer league go defunct in the first place? As far as I know of, no European league after world war II has stopped operating. What was the reason the NASL ceased to exist? If attendances dropt, the league might see some bad days, but it appears very strange to me it just went out of business completely. A bad league still seems better to me than no league at all. 3. Why isn't it possible to go down and up between the different American leagues? Wouldn't it add an extra dimension to the sport if the teams at the bottem of the table had something to play for as well? At the same time, attendances at the 2nd tier would increase for there is a MLS-spot to play for. 4. What about this draft system? As far as I get it, young players are not contracted by the clubs, but by the MLS, who distributes them by the draft format at which the club that finished bottem has the first pick. If there is no possibility of going down, why not just finish bottem on purpose if there is nothing to play for anymore? This would provide you with the best MLS youngsters. 5. The intention behind the draft system seems to limit the differences in quality between the clubs. Last season's bottem team has the first pick, and the best team has the last. What is wrong with establishing a soccer elite of the best clubs? They would just be rewarded for their own performances. Ain't it ironic that the forerunner of capitalism has this kind of "socialist" system when it comes to sport? Are you all in favour of these rules and formats? And if so, do you think it might even be better for Europe to 'Americanize' their leagues?
I am not American either but I was told it has something to do with American business models of franchising. Similar to how a McDonalds franchise can't operate as an independent restaurant. If McDonalds corporation folds, all the franchises fold as well. And the worst performing franchises can't relegate to a lower corporation like say Burger King (as MLS and USFL are different corporations)
While I prefer a promotion/relegation system, it just won't work in America. For one general American fans won't put up with it - we don't have it in any of our other sports, it's a completely foreign concept. And for two you won't get ANY one investing in the teams/buying teams if there is going to be any chance of relegation. It just won't work in America. Again, the draft is something that is common to US sports, and is a way for us to get players. We don't have developed youth systems the way Euro and other leagues do. That said we are developing our youth systems, and the clubs do have a chance to bring those players through without going through the draft.
Sadly, the NASL wasn't the first professional league to fold in the U.S. In the 1920's, in the first Golden Age of soccer, there was a flourishing professional league in the U.S. In fact there were 2 and the competition between them helped (along with the Great Depression) kill the professional sport for decades in this country. I think another factor people haven't mentioned about "why soccer is the way it is in America" is geography. Using England for an example, a circle with a radius of 250km centered on Birmingham includes almost all the Premiership teams except Portsmouth (when they're in the league) and the teams from the northeast (Newcastle, etc.). There are only a bare handful of teams that are that close to each other in MLS, and for the most part they're at the upper end of that limit. (LA and Chivas the obvious exception.) When Fulham had to play Shaktar Donetsk in the Europa League this year, it was a big deal - Donetsk was 2 thousand miles away! wow! Except my New England Revs have to fly further than that - sometimes a LOT further - to play 7 club fixtures this year (Denver, Salt Lake, LA, Chivas, San Jose, Seattle). Next year, if we play home-and-away with everyone, it will be 9, adding Portland and Vancouver. (Plus trips to Dallas and Houston, almost as long London-Donetsk).
Oh boy, did you ever open up a can of worms (but in a good way ). As someone unfamiliar with the American system, you raise legitimate, intelligent questions. I will try to answer them for you, based on the answers already given. 1) As atomicbloke stated, our leagues are based on a franchise system (McDonald's was a very good analogy). Sombody forms a league, and sells "franchises" within the league. People (some who have more money than sense ) pay a fee to own a franchise, and then they build it from the ground up (team name, players, etc.). They adhere to the rules and regulations of that league, and if they can't make it, they fold (like a European team going into "administration," and then "liquidation"). If the league can't make it, usually because too many teams go under, it will collapse as well. However, that doesn't mean that the teams themselves have to fold; when the NASL collapsed in 1985, a couple or three teams (Tulsa Roughnecks, San Jose Earthquakes, Tampa Bay Rowdies (I think)) chose to go the "barnstorming" route, where they became independent teams, playing their own schedule. Some of the teams (Chicago Sting, San Diego Sockers, to name a couple) chose to join another league (MISL--indoor), but they had to pay the franchise fee to get into that league. 2) As stated before, a soccer league can go defunct if the teams in that league go defunct themselves, or they pull out of the league to play elsewhere. You can't really have a league, if there's nobody to play in it. 3) Teams don't move up or down because our leagues are independent of each other. Theoretically, a team could move "up" or "down," depending on the league, but they would have to pay to enter said league, and may have to rebuild their team, depending on the level to which they were moving. There has been some movement like this, where a team in one league would become an expansion team in another (i.e. Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver going from Division 2 to MLS; same team name, but new players, uniforms, etc.), or simply moving to another league intact (Chicago & San Diego going to the MISL, as mentioned before, the Jacksoville Team Men going from the NASL to the ASL (1982), or the Washinton Darts and Rochester Lancers moving from the ASL to the NASL (1970)). You can switch leagues, but it"s not the same as being promoted of relegated. 4) The draft is a staple of all American sports. Since baseball and hockey are the only sports with a true minor league, the college system is used to get young players (and baseball and hockey use the colleges as well). To be a draft pick is simply an invitation to come play for a team; a player is selected, just like a scout from a European club would see some kid playing for a team, school, etc., and offer him a spot on their reserve side. The difference is that a draft has national implications; a team from New York can pick a kid from Wisconsin to come play for them, and vice versa. It would be the same if, say, Liverpool invited somebody from the area of London where Chelsea is located to play for them, or again, vice versa. Or something like that. 5) Yes, the lower place finishers do get the higher draft picks, but there is no real incentive to "lose" so that you can get a higher pick. It does no good to draft a top pick, when the rest of the team sucks; people still aren't going to go to the games. Some teams do use younger players, in order to develop them into a good team, but the way to go is to have a good team as abase, and bring in the kids in oder to work them in for the future. As far as an "elite" level of clubs, MLS is it; the owners have the money to get the best players and have the best teams. Second, third, and fourth division are there for a reason; either the owners don't have the money to go any higher (and some really don't have the $$$ to be where they are; that's why there is such a turnover in the lower levels), or else the town or city where the team is would not support a higher level attendance-wise. Most of the lower level teams would fold if they went up, and if an MLS team was forced to relegate, it too would possibly fold, either because the owner would pull the plug ("I paid 40 million #$%$#^@% dollars, for this team to go down a level to play in Rochester!! Take your relegation and shove it up your @##%@!!"), or the fans would not support the team because of the relegation ("I ain't paying $30 @!$#%# dollars to see my team play Rochester! Take your relegation, and shove it up your @$$@^%!!!"). Anyway, I hope this answers your questions somewhat. Sorry to make you wade through a lot of stuff to get to it. Peace.
In 2008 the Los Angeles Galaxy with David Beckham tied for the fewest points in MLS with 33 and if the bottom two clubs out of fourteen had been relegated regardless of conference they would have been relegated. In 2009 they tied for the second most points in MLS, lost the playoff final, and qualified for the CONCACAF Champions League. The first two parts would have been impossible if they had been relegated, while the last part would have required them to win the U.S. Open Cup had they been relegated after 2008. In 2010 the Galaxy have a chance to break the record for most points by an MLS club in a season which is held by the Galaxy in 1998. MLS started in 1996. My point is that MLS has more change in who is good and who isn't than some European leagues. The American and European way of operating soccer may never become the same just like vehicles drive on different sides of the road in the two continents.
1) As somebody mentioned before many leagues folded before. 2) this is a tough market especially for a sport that isnt popular yet. After WW2 even popular sports leagues in this country failed. There were many basketball leagues that folded during the 40s and 50s. The ABA came and gained some popularity but in the end it failed and a few franchises joined the NBA. American Football had a few leagues that failed or had to join up with the NFL and we are talking about the most popular sport here. Hockey has been around here for awhile and during that time we seen a league (WHA) fold and many franchises move from city to city. 3) This would never work here. Even in popular sports there like the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL if a team is doing bad nobody watches on tv or cares to go to the games. Some cities in the USA are simply not sports cities which is why a big marker like LA lost not one but 2 NFL franchises. IF these teams get relegated to a 2nd division it would be even worse for them. Us soccer fans would love to see this but we now it wont fly in this country. Even a single table season without playoffs wont work here. We have seen over the past years the NFL go from 8 to 12 teams that make the playoffs. Baseball went from just one winner in the NL and AL meeting in the world series in the 60s to breaking up both leagues and having 4 teams make the playoffs. When baseball fans started to lose interest if their team was out of it by July, MLB then broke up the leagues more and made each league 3 divisions with the winner of each division making the playoffs along with the best 2nd place team. After 1995 what became 4 teams making the playoffs grew to 8 because this is the only way to keep more cities interested in the sport for a longer run. This is why a single table non playoff format would never work here in a sport that is trying to grow if it couldnt work for sports that have been staples in America for decades. 4 and 5) This is the way American professional sports works. We dont have youth systems here for any sport. This is how its done, kids play said sport in High School then College then the draft, aside from Hockey since many of the sports players come from Europe or Canada where they have this system in place. Even with hockey you dont see many American born players since this would require parents spending astronomical amounts of money for their kid to play in a youth league making trips to the Northern USA and Canada. Even if we did have youth systems, this isnt England, Holland, Italy etc... This is a big country. I dont think parents are going travel with their kids or let them go from Philly to Seattle for a youth team match. Kids would miss school days and im sure that somehow this would violate some sort of child labor law.
Thanks for the elaborate answers. I get the franchise-concept. t goes without saying the franchise-concept does exist in Europe as well, but not in the world of sports. It It would be an interesting task to figure out why the States and Europe differ on this point. Why was there a need to do it like this in America? Or to turn the question around; why was there no need to do it in such a way in Europe? It seems to come down to the, rather simplified, distinction in Europe there were clubs before there were leagues, and in the USA there were leagues before there were clubs. In most European countries the clubs weren't founded with the intention to play other clubs in a league-format but just to provide the occasion to kick a ball. The clubs functioned as independent companies from the start and only later on unified in a covering organisation that organized a league. If at the time a league is founded, there are several big clubs in existence that are of significance to the communities they are based in, it does not seem logical to incorporate them into a newly found organization, but just organize the opportunity to let them play each other and further let them function independently. There probably were soccer teams around in the USA before there was league-soccer, but perhaps they did not really rooted in the communities because of the American cities having a more turbulent demographic history than European cities, with immigrants flowing in all the time causing a rapid population increase. But that's just a theory. After all, there are some MLS-clubs who have a NASL-name. Are these actually the same organization or did they just pick ta NASL-name in order to construct some connection with the past? Off course, distance is a factor that sets USA apart from Europe. I get the point it would not make sense to have youth academies at the MLS-clubs because of travelling distances for young kids. But if, like DavidP posted, the draft system can make youngsters to move from Wisconsin to New York, wouldn't it be better to let the clubs scout players at the colleges on their own behalf? To what extent do the players that sign a contract with the MLS have the freedom to choose their team? About relegation/promotion; ironically everyone that posted so far agreed on the fact it would not work in the USA, but added that he would favour it himself and Paisano22 said soccerfans would love it. Why wouldn't it work if everyone that likes soccer favours this kind of system? Soccer is played for soccerfans. About the problem of the owners stepping out if there is a chance to go down. Can this argument be countered by pointing at (American) owners who are getting an interest in foreign clubs at this time, clubs that play in leagues were relegation exists. And the bright side of such a measure is that an owner that likes to see a MLS-side in his/her city can just start to improve a local team, in order to gain promotion. 1899 Hoffenheim from Germany is an example of such a construction.
I can see why a league unpredictable like this is exciting. Maybe with the risk of going down, teams would start to play more defensive, making the game more boring. Still, the leagues behind the MLS would only benefit for sure. Another question; if the MLS and the USL aren't connected in any way, what makes the MLS officially the country's top tier? Isn't it just one of the leagues that happens to be the most prestigious?
They are all affiliated with and sanctioned by the USSF, so while not connected in a promotion-relegation sense, they are still designated by the federation as having their specific place in the pyramid. Can some 3rd division clubs be more prestigious and make more money than 2nd division clubs? Sure, but you get that in every country. The system underneath MLS is very fluid, meaning clubs come and go and get realigned all the time. MLS is the rock, the standard. To answer several of your questions before: I think soccer fans would like promotion-relegation in theory, but practically we think it would be disastrous, for financial reasons above. The teams taking on NASL names have been completely new organizations, but they do want to connect with the past. We may have a new NY Cosmos soon, but they will be a completely new organization, as the old club went under. In terms of the draft, it helps competitive balance, which is something the league is always striving for. As it is a very young league, and a financially precarious single-entity system, a hint of parity is something they would like to keep if possible. The draft is the most straight-forward way to do this. Right now, MLS is not ready to have super-clubs, although they look to be moving in that direction with the continuous stretching of the "Designated-Player" rule.
It's not exactly true that there were sports leagues before there were clubs in the United States. Baseball started as clubs setting up their own schedules and playing any teams they could. Those amateur clubs joined an organization called the National Association of Base Ball Players. The NABBP had 400 members by 1867. Within the NABBP regional and state leagues were set up. In the late 1860s professional clubs started to appear and they started their own organization, the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players. This new NAPBBP gained power and the NABBP became a mostly state and local organization for amateur baseball. Eventually some of the strongest teams broke away from the NAPBBP and formed the National League. That league of pre-existing clubs then restricted membership to new members of its choosing and effectively started the franchise system. The National League is still around today along with the American League which was started when the National League kicked some clubs out and the formerly semi-professional Western League snapped them up and worked their way up to major league status. And then promptly instituted the franchise system to control league membership. All of this happened because the clubs were really independent under the NABBP and NAPBBP. Neither was ever the equivalent of the FA in England which controlled all clubs, pro and amateur, and organized the competition among them. College sports in the U.S. are another example. Colleges had teams and competed against each other long before they organized themselves into leagues (conferences) or the NCAA was created. I think that is one of the main differences between the European and USA/Canada sports models. We never had powerful national federations that controlled particular sports. The clubs and leagues would voluntarily follow rule conventions but tended to strike off on their own as far as organizing their competitions.
Not just sport. Actually, Americans love their socialism, just so long as it benefits corporations and not, you know, the people.
This might be a good explanation as well. This format of two leagues that together form the upper tier, that exists in baseball and American football (and other sports as well?), is absolutely unseen in Europe. When I recently heard of it first, my first question was why they weren't united under the wings of one federation. A national soccer federation going into business at the beginning of the 20th century, the time most European FA's emerged, would probably have hold together one league with the best teams in the country, making sure that it would stay in operation at all time. I assume there is some national soccer federation, to head the national team for example, but how much has this organization to do with the MLS and USL?
I also think you have to also question the european Format?!!! you have a 10month season and no post season champion, you take your "cup" competitions which are like mid season playoff games and cluster them up with the regular season games. Then you have this ridiculous Single Standings(table) with at least 10 to 20 teams. Do you really think American sports fans are gonna support a team in 10th or even 13th Place especially if theyre not in contention to when the league?? So now. the American System give teams a chance to be competitive and to win Championships.
But the league is not the only thing they are contending for. The top 6-7 teams are also contending for the Champions League spots. The middle of the pack teams are contending for the Europa League spots. And the bottom of the pack are contending to avoid relegation. Hence, even late season games between bottom ranked teams are meaningful and fraught with tension for the both players and fans. In American sports leagues, if you have a bad start and are out of the playoff race early, then you have no incentive for the current season, and coaches start rebuilding for the next season. Because other than the playoffs, there is no other prize to fight for.
the reasoning is still useless Like here in the US College football teams need 6 wins a solid 7 win out of 12 games just to qualify for a Bowl Game. that Most people dont even care about. ... teams in the single table format always lose out, there is really nothing to play for if you not in the top 2 or four. the qualification spots are worthless because you can not play those until the following season. which leads to my point that european leagues do not have a definitive Championship. Like the Super Bowl or the world Series at the End of season. Champions league doeant really count because its not a post season tournement its a cup competition played throughout the season, to me it devalues its purpose to me. The American Way is better Im sorry. Promotion relegation part is cool I like that but the teams trying to "survive" still would go far in Mainstream american sports, Teams probably wont last long. Some owners would think its a watse of money. Promotion and relegation can work with a playoff twist. But a straight drop would kill not only a team but the league.
I see this analogy all the time and it isn't really accurate to call the U.S. sports system socialist. Socialism is ownership or control of the means of production by the government. Nothing about the U.S. sports system is ownership by the government. The McDonald's example is the best comparison. Is McDonald's socialist because one corporation grants franchises that then operate as a group of separate companies to the benefit of all (or most) of the franchise holders? Remember that most McDonald's restaurants are not owned by McDonalds, they are owned by separate companies. No, because McDonalds competes with Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. Teams in MLS are unified by the single-entity system but the league as a whole competes with the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, College Sports, and other entertainment organizations. That's not socialism. U.S. sports leagues are cartels. And cartels are completely capitalist since the cartel controls the mean of production, not the government. Really the system in other countries is more socialist since the national federation is typically given license by the government to control the sport within the country.
Better or worse is a matter of taste, and a lot of folks prefer the European way, myself included. Couple of points. I have no idea how prestigious going to all the bowl games are, but for soccer pros in Europe, going to the Champions and Europa league is extremely prestigious, and is the ultimate dream for many of them, as well as the fans. And there is no concept of post reason and regular season in Europe, just one season and we like it that way. If there was single elimination post season, it would be no different than the league cup competitions and would devalue the league. No one said the Champions League and Europa League is post season, it is a league running in parallel during the domestic league and domestic league cup. Hence, a club is playing in 3 different competitions simultaneously, and this gives the fans more to cheer about throughout the season. Also, we like the single table league because it means every team plays every other twice a season, once at home and once away. This means there is no commentary on "strength of schedule" like you have in NFL, where some teams have an easier schedule than other teams depending on how they finished the previous season. It also means that the champion at the conclusion of the league is a truly the best side over the course of the season since everyone played against each other. In the NFL, a few years ago the Super Bowl was won by the 10-6 Giants, whereas even they would agree the 16-0 Patriots were a better team. While the story of a club just scraping in to the playoffs and then going on a hot-streak to win the Championship makes for a romantic story, we reserve such romantic stories for the Champions and Europa Leagues, which have group stages, followed by home and away single elimination playoffs.
from atomic... No one said the Champions League and Europa League is post season, it is a league running in parallel during the domestic league and domestic league cup. Hence, a club is playing in 3 different competitions simultaneously, and this gives the fans more to cheer about throughout the season. thats the problem, its so clustered and to me not very structured... over here you have the regular season games, the best teams from the regular season playoff for the championsship. like in baseball you have Pennant races the best teams when their division go on to the playoffs and the best of the best play. also the Playoffs are at a particular time of the year, not all yr along. plus its all in the same yr unlike the european leagues.
A couple of things here... One of the reasons for the franchise system and why promotion and relegation won't work in North America is television. It's considered desirable in American sports to have a league with teams in all the major markets and big cities to increase revenue and ratings. A league like the EPL, where virtually every team is in greater London, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham would never work in America because the people who were left out would (theoretically) never watch. This is probably less true today than it was 50 years ago, especially in the NFL, but it's kind of ingrained in our culture. We're also not the only ones who use the franchise system. In fact, it seems to me that the vast majority of sports leagues aside from soccer leagues use some form of franchising. Cricket and rugby leagues in particular. Americans like to win. To us, the goal is to win. That's why the idea of 4 teams dominating a league every year ridiculous. Concepts like making the Champions League or winning a cup being considered just as good as winning a league are totally foreign to the American psyche, much like some of our ideas probably sound totally absurd to you.
Oh, I almost forgot... there is typically a way to prevent teams from intentionally losing to get a higher draft pick. In basketball and hockey, there is a lottery to determine the draft order, so the worst team might not necessarily get the first pick. In baseball, the American League and National League alternate picking first... so if the 4 worst teams overall are in the NL, they might have to pick second, fourth, sixth and eighth. In the NFL, there is enough parity due to the hard salary cap that tanking isn't an issue.
There was a national soccer federation early on. The U.S. Soccer Federation, which runs the national team, was founded in 1913 (its original name was the U.S. Football Association). It was a successor to the first attempt at a national soccer federation, named the American Football Association, which was founded in 1884. Both the USFA and the AFA immediately after their founding started national cup competitions, although in practice the AFA Cup was more regional than national. The USFA's cup, originally called the National Challenge Cup, still exists. It is now called the U.S. Open Cup. Within a few years of its founding, it had expanded to include the nation's best teams, covering an area from New England to St. Louis. In addition to the eastern teams that had played in the AFA Cup, teams from Great Lakes points such as Buffalo, Detroit and Chicago entered the National Challenge Cup in its first year, the 1913-14 season. Teams from St. Louis began entering in 1919. A league incorporating the nation's best teams was simply an impossibility back then. The United States is too large, and in 1913, airline travel didn't exist. The fastest mode of travel was trains, and New York to St. Louis was a trip of several days. The original American Soccer League was founded in 1921, but it was a regional league, with teams in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Travel beyond this distance in the amount of time required to maintain a league schedule was impossible. For national competition, a cup was the way to go, as teams from points 1,000 miles apart didn't have to meet until the round or two, rather than week in and week out. The USSF has quite a bit to do with MLS. In 1993, it granted MLS its charter to begin operating as the United States' first-division league. There is some inbreeding between the two organizations. The president of the USSF is also a leading executive of the New England MLS team.
Yes, I agree how it could seem clustered to someone used to the American sports league. And its actually more clustered than you think. Because simultaneously, the players are also on "international duty". Which means they have to play for their national teams in the World Cup qualifiers or the European Championship qualifiers depending on the cycle. So in between the club season, there are some dates set aside for "international games" usually Sundays and Wednesdays in June, September, October, November and March. Consider an example of Messi for FC Barcelona. He might play the Coppa Del Ray game against Valencia in Barcelona on Monday, then the Primera Liga game against Malaga in Malaga on Thursday, fly 12 hours (and 3 time zone) to Buenos Aires to play for Argentina against Uruguay in the World Cup qualifier in Buenos Aires, then fly another time zone away to La Paz to play another World Cup qualifier against Bolivia at 12,000 feet on Wednesday, and then fly 12 hours back to Europe to play again for Barcelona against Arsenal in the Champions League game at London on Sunday. All in 2 weeks worth of work
Why do many Americans think that "wanting to win" is something exclusively American. Every one on the world wants to win and are just as competitive as Americans if not more. Where did this idea take root that Americans love winning while everyone else is perfectly fine with losing. Every club in Europe wants to win the league championship and thats the aim they have before the season. No team says that our goal this season is just to make the Europa League or to avoid relegation and as long as we are scraping by, we'll be perfectly happy. Good teams want to achieve the treble, win the domestic league, the league cup and the Champions League. For the top pros, and coaches like Mourinho, nothing less than that is considered a success. And since the concept of parity doesn't exist, a team has to overcome more odds to break in to the ranks of the top clubs winning the championship. You might consider Manchester United winning most times to be boring, but if you read their history, there was a time when they were not among the top tier of clubs. After Alex Ferguson joined them, and transformed their culture, the team improved and started winning the Premiership and 2 Champions League titles. and built their dynasty over the last 2 decades. They were not helped by parity or high draft picks to make this transformation. Similarly, Chelsea were also not considered among regular title contenders until recently when Mourinho took over the club. Inter Milan were an also ran team for a few years until a a few good seasons helped them build their current dynasty. The reverse is also true. Teams like Newcastle and Leeds United were among the top teams at one time, and were contenders for the championship every year and also featured in the late stages of the Champions League. But several bad seasons later, they are now languishing in the 2nd division.
That's true in the best leagues like England, but not in most European leagues that get fewer clubs in the Champions League and Europa League combined.