No it's not. I agree that many countries have them, but that does not make it part of the game. Again, we are talking about an American soccer league. Not an American English-Sporting-Competition-That-Happens-to-Include-Some-Soccer.
I don't quite understand your point. Name a top division in the world that has clubs that do not compete in multiple competitions (league/domestic cup/international cup)
Australia, though they are trying to get a cup. And yes they play in Asia, but they only have one domestic competition. I don't quite understand your point. I know that having multiple competitions is quite common and popular. I would like MLS to have interesting secondary competitions as well (as I define interesting--I'll know it when I see it). But that doesn't make it part of the game. I define the game as being 22 players, a ball, and a referee. I could expand that definition in include the Laws of the Game or even the things that young players learn as they learn the game. Kids are taught to kick, to not use their hands, to play fair, etc. All those things are part of the game. If you insist that having a team play in multiple competitions is part of the game, then does that mean we have to go to the park and make sure that people choosing teams have at least competitions before they go home for dinner? Many leagues recruit players by throwing money at them. Does that make it part of the game? Should we have youth coaches try to give the best four year olds more candy to join their team because it is part of the game? Having teams play in more than one competition is common. That doesn't make it part of the game.
I think there is a big misunderstanding here. My point about multiple competitions was one about the sport of soccer being different from other pro team sports we have in the US, and how it is a hurdle in order to obtain casual fans and obtain more media coverage. I made the comparison to March Madness, that if that tournament (which is not that different from our USOC) was in fact played over the course of several months during the league season it would hurt general interest and hurt media coverage. Now of course college sports is always going to be popular, but would march madness be less popular by playing the games during the regular season thus creating multiple competitions? I think so. I think there is value in have one competition... stopping and then starting another. My suggestion was to separate our league and our cup and not have 2 different cups and not use our league as a giant qualifying stage for the cup. Allow the league itself to stand on its own as its own competition and allow the cup to stand on its own. March-Aug Every team in MLS plays each other once home or away (rotating each year) the top team is the champion. Other rewards can be given to top placing teams in order to keep interest high deeper into the season. Top teams can be awarded CCL spots, draft picks, or allocations. Break the end of August and transfer players in and out as the transfer window closes. This also solves an issue of loosing star players to other leagues mid-season, something that MLS deals with that no other American pro sports league deals with. Start an MLS Cup that allows all fully pro teams to enter (media/sponsorships still controlled by SUM) and create groups by geography. Best teams in the group advance into a knockout playoffs just like we have now. At the end of each year we have one clear and undeniable League Champion and one Cup Champion.
My understanding is that you are claiming that MLS is obligated to run its competition(s) in the same manner that the rest of the world does, because that is how the rest of the world does it. If that was not the case, I do apologize. I don't like the nonsensical theory of "Soccer is a World Game and We Must Do it Like the Rest of the World." I may have jumped at an opportunity to attack that theory, and while I enjoy attacking such nonsense, I don't want to do so at the expense of being wrong or of making a fool of myself. I agree that soccer is different to other sports because it is more popular world wide. But the sole difference of any real meaning is that it means that there are other leagues that poach MLS players midseason. The only clear solution to that problem is to pay more money so people won't want to leave. That is somewhat unrealistic though. Now I respect your right to want to have two competitions per year. But I do disagree and I admit that might cloud my judgment. That being said, I see one flaw in your league then cup format. March Madness is quite popular. I would not mind at all if the end of the MLS season was as popular. Unfortunately for college basketball, March Madness and the nonsensical conference tournaments that precede it make the regular season essentially meaningless. When a conference can send four or five teams or more to the Big Dance, is there really any need to pay attention to the regular season? I would say no and I believe that most people would agree with me. If every single MLS team plays in a USOC that begins after the regular season ends, MLS will have the same problem as March Madness. For no particular gain during the regular season, MLS may get a big finish every year. I'm not saying that regular season attendance would go down, it probably won't. But will it increase if the American idea of the "real season" doesn't begin until September? Will the Cup take off when its only played against football? In short. I just don't think your plan will accomplish anything for the league's benefit. It will make people who want two competitions and first past the post happy, for whatever reasons they want those things. Who else will it benefit? The American sports fan who could be converted to soccer will either come through the EPL, the UCL, or an American league that plays like an American league. I don't like American jingoism and the claim that we're better than everyone. But I also don't see a reason to do something just because everyone else is. I won't mention any bridges, but the rest of the world uses the metric system. Do you want that too?
pro/rel could be instituted. It would just take many years for it to be doable. The biggest barrier is the whole franchise/single entity model. As long as thats there its gonna be very difficult. But culturally there are no barriers to instituting pro/rel. Americans understand the pro/rel system. Most American soccer fans i talk to don't understand why we don't have pro/rel yet. I'd be curious to see some actual polling data if American soccer fans want pro/rel or not.
They should poll fans of European clubs not always in the top 5 in their respective leagues. What those 10 people have to say will be very telling. The biggest barrier to pro/rel is 15 to 20 fanbases not putting up with teams never having a chance to win the title.
Does anyone have a link to Garber's quote?? Coz I was always sure he never mentioned relegation in it? He said simulated promotion and it was in the context of expansion. MLS has had simulated promotion with Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Montreal? Teams moving up from a lower division is always what I assumed he was talking about?
The point was, I believe, that there's nothing inherent about the game itself that necessitates or makes it more suitable for multiple competitions. They'd always be in favour. There's absolutely no feeling at all that it should be scrapped.
How on earth do you get rid of the franchise model? You have teams paying 40M to get in now and in the future you will have teams paying 100M to get in. How does that just vanish, how do you move to an open system when hundreds of millions of franchise fees have been paid? Its like saying that I could easily own google if we just convince them if all stock holders agree to release all their stocks to me. How do you get someone to give up something they bought for tens or someday hundreds of millions of dollars without a huge court battle that would easily take down the entire league? The only reasonable approach I think is to have 2 different competitions 1 closed and 1 open. I suggested having MLS be a shorter closed league and have a longer open cup in the fall. You could also have a scenario somewhat similar to Brazil in which teams play in both a state and national league. You could have instead of US Open Cup a US Open League that teams play in (with pro/rel) but teams would also play in MLS. And if you think fixture congestion would be an issue I guarantee you that MLS teams would rather hire a bunch of more 50k a year players and huge squad and just send out the 'B Team' to play in the open league. Whatever way you think about it, the single entity/franchise isn't going anywhere. You can think of ways to add or improve our current open competitions, but I can't think of one reasonable way to dissolve the franchise model.
like i said, the biggest barrier is the franchise/single entity model. That's why I don't think pro/rel is happening any time soon. I just hesitate to use the word never. my point was that there are no cultural barriers to pro/rel in the US. Some people argue that pro/rel won't work because of American sports culture. This is not true.
you don't understand football culture. Even fans of a relegated EPL club overwhelmingly support pro/rel. It's part of the game. pro/rel has nothing to do with lack of parity. You're confusing two issues
And like I said, there is no cultural barrier for the stock owners of Google to simply hand over that stock to me that they purchased. There is no fundamental reason why it can't happen other than that fact that it is totally illogical. I would also hesitate to use the word never when describing Google stockholders simply handing me over stock that I didn't purchase, it could in theory happen but I would say that it will probably never happen...like 99.99999999999999999999 percent chance it won't happen but I agree...lets not say never. You would need to construct a scenario where teams adding the risk of relegation is somehow more valuable or attractive than not having risk of relegation. There needs to be motivation. Just as there is no motivation for stock owners to hand me free google stock there is currently no motivation to hand non franchise/stock holders access to a company that the owners build (MLS). That is why people fall into these fantasy scenarios of FIFA or USSF somehow strong arming MLS to make it happen. I guess in a similar way the US gov't could force Google to hand me over free stocks but that too seems pretty unlikely to happen. The barrier isn't a cultural one, I think the barrier is a financial one. If on day one USSF granted MLS D1 status with the agreement that there will be pro/rel with A-League, then we could have pro/rel right now. You could argue if that would be a good thing or a bad thing but I won't make that argument, but what I am saying is that it needed to happen on day one. It had to happen before people started signing franchise checks and before cities started using public money to build MLS stadiums. If everyone knew exactly what they were getting into, then it would be fine. The issue is the transition. Just like in my analogy, it would have been equally fine if I was given Google stock on day 1 before the company was built. Then at this point no one would have a problem with me having those stocks. The problem we have is transitioning once the company is successful. If I want that stock now I need to pay for it, just like if teams want into MLS they need to pay. I don't see a path that would easily allow owners of stock to just give up valuable stocks for free when they don't need to.
It has something to do with it, as it makes implementing parity measures like salary caps awkward, but it has nothing at all to do with why Manchester United are far richer than Everton.
LOL. It happened yet again. Pro/rel zealot gets backed into a corner, has no logical answers, so his only response is "You're stupid, I don't wanna talk to you anymore!" It happens every single time. Every pro/rel related thread features an instance such as this. Always plays out the same way. Few things in life are as predictible as a pro/rel zealot's meltdown.
But if you just accepted the Holy Gospel According to the Promotion and the Relegation, he wouldn't be forced to insult you. Remember, you are the one who is wrong for not demanding pro/rel, which is really a part of the game. Just look at the Laws of the Game, what is more important to soccer than pro/rel? The ball? The size of the goal? No! Nothing is as important. That is why every single soccer league everywhere in the world, from top level professional competitions down to five year olds in the park has pro/rel! Arguing against pro/rel is like arguing against Christmas. There are just no responses left after so much insanity! Praise the Single Table!
I'll just put this tweet from Robb Heineman right here... https://twitter.com/RobbHeineman/status/269626380013150208
If nobody watches this league and its 7th(?) in average attendance world-wide, what does that mean for all those other leagues?