There was nothing stopping someone from investing in a local non-league club, which did exist, and building it up to the professional level. Except relocation was easier, which is also the reason that relocation would still happen in a hypothetical US pro/rel system.
If I were a Crew fan I'd want pro/rel. Now Columbus likely will never have a 1st division team, ever.
The problem is relocation in a franchise closed system vs relocation in a pro/rel open system. In the former, you're essentially shit out of luck going forward of wanting a 1st division, or really any team, unless you happen to steal someone else's team away from them years down the road. In the latter, there's the opportunity to build again and fight your way back up. There's a path.
In Warshaw's description in particular, the players simply wanted to hide out and keep the stench of a bad team off them. Re: Galaxy, DCU, Colorado -- THOSE players are playing for their jobs. When you fall out of MLS, you're generally falling to NASL/USL if you're domestic and your home country if you're from elsewhere. And those clubs are giving young players a chance instead of trotting out grizzled veterans who know how to muck up a game. Pro/rel has a lot of positives. But this notion of building character through pressure is overblown at best. Or is there some other reason a bunch of MLS players on Central American teams did better in CONCACAF than Jozy Altidore?
Believe me, I've had the revenge fantasy of Columbus being promoted and Austin being relegated. But the reality is this: If we had pro/rel, it's pretty unlikely Columbus would have a first division team, too, unless they found some guy who wanted to pump a ton of money into the club for personal reasons.
Won't argue this, but I will add that what makes the US, again, unique in this regard is that we have comparably few teams and a lot of large and/or growing markets. When it comes to pro soccer we've had to hit the reset button several times, which means we're in our comparable infancy as a soccer nation. If you go back in the annals of soccer history you find many other nations experienced similar growing pains as owners, teams, and fans all sorted themselves out. Some of this contributed to the eventual birth of pro/rel, but it was also the pure consumerism of businesses finding their market niche. None of us here (I suspect) as fans want MLS to abide this likely move, and it is true pro/rel would be one option for addressing this aspect but it wouldn't be a cure all to the notion of having a top flight side. For instance, instead of relocation Austin could simply opt in as a new club at a lower level but not be guaranteed they could make D1. Ditto Columbus. Meanwhile, even without pro/rel Columbus could, in fact, resurrect the Crew as, say, a USL side and/or make their case for eventually getting back in. Further, I don't foresee MLS seeing this type of scenario play out often or much more in the future. If the league is smart it reacts to this in a way to restrict/minimize the potential for such in the future, lest they damage their rapport with the fans. So the bottom line is this particular case is an ugly side of pro sports, and one that pro/rel could address but is not a cure all.
So, Netherlands misses out = Not everyone gets in. US misses out = That's the price for not having pro/rel. Got it.
Good point... AFC Wimbledon being a classic example. They've now worked their way up the pyramid to the exact same level as MK Dons.
Of the four locations of MLS teams that "went away", two had new MLS teams announced inside two years and a third would be playing right now, if its ownership group could get their act together.
What percentage of US "major league" relocations in the last 25 years have ended up with a "replacement" team in the locale the team moved away from? I can think of a few, but equally I can think of a lot where that wasn't the case.
4/13, 30.8% As an addendum to this, I read up on the nature of these relocations. Of the 9 that are yet to see a replacement, 5 were relocated in the wake of the teams struggling in their markets. 3 either just relocated or are in the midst of relocating, so haven't really had time for a replacement. One of those three of course, was returning to a locale that it had left 21 years prior. The one team that doesn't really fall into any of those categories is the Seattle Supersonics. However, the fact that their move didn't come in the wake of financial struggles or an untenable situation, means that the door appears to be very much open for the NBA to return at some point.
I make it 17 relocations (5 NHL, 1 MLB, 3 NBA, 7 NFL including Raiders, 1 MLS), plus 3 MLS contractions. So 20 locales in total lost a major league team.
Again, it's not about being against pro/rel or not wanting it. It's about people speaking up in favor of it addressing issues/points/questions in regards to it. Based on the situation of things here in the US, that's where my lines of discussion come from. SOME of them are universal ... others are not. "Deserve" to get relegated? What does that even mean? If they were that crap they'd be out of business (and maybe they will). Simply because you run your business well doesn't mean you get to (or should) foray into bigger and better avenues. My hometown pizza joints was one of the best run businesses I've ever seen. That didn't make them "deserving" or even able to compete with Pizza Hut outside of our town. What they did do, is make Pizza Hut build in the neighboring town because it wouldn't have flown in mine. There's nothing wrong with being what you are ... regardless of what that is. Besides, if lower level clubs are run that well in Australia ... isn't there an avenue to gain A-League status? That's not a pro/rel thing though. Hey guys ^ China and Spain aren't pro/rel leagues "across the world" ... Except in the last 5-10yrs relocations have happened more in pro/rel leagues than in franchise leagues. WHOOPS. Since inception of the MLS, US "major" sports leagues have had: MLS - 1 NFL - 7 (4 of those slots are from 2 teams ... LA moved, moved back and Oakland will have moved twice) MLB - 1 NBA - 4 NHL - 4 .................. a grand total of 17 (13 different franchises) since MLS began play (note only ONE in the closed soccer model) What I can find about pro/rel "major" leagues across the world: Armenia - 1 Austria - 1 Czech Republic - 1 Estonia - 4 Germany - 3 Italy - 1 Kazahkstan - 4 (same club) Latvia - 1 Lithuania - 1 Moldova - 1 Netherlands - 1 Poland - 4 Romania - 1 Russia - 2 Spain - 2 Switzerland - 1 Ukraine - 1 Brazil - 1 Colombia - 3 Costa Rica - 2 Mexico - 6 Venezuela - 3 China - 18 (what I found) Japan - 3 That's more than 17 and I didn't even look at other parts of Asia or Africa. Oh hey there goalpost move ... and ignoring the administration aspect of association football across the globe. You mean Phoenix clubs (or the same type of thing) exists in the American closed league structure? Huh .. who'da thunk it. If you want to go that route .... then you should just stop. With "administration" the pro/rel leagues are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR worse.
I was counting the big 4 major leagues and we were discussing replacements. I missed Minnesota North Stars, but that locale now has a team. The Raiders moved and returned, and LA is well served at this point. As the Raiders haven't moved to Vegas yet, it stands to reason that they won't have a replacement at this point. Regardless, I agree that this method of pressuring for a shiny new venue leaves a bad taste, especially wrt leagues that are raking in billions. Frankly, build your own ****ing stadium. However, as I said before, there is blame on all sides. People shouldn't support a team relocated on that basis, out of principal. Local governments should push back and make the information known: these stadiums are often not the commercial boon that they're held up as. At the same time, we can't discount that there are officials who like the PR of bringing a major league to their town. It's also hard to sympathise with the "I'm alright jack" culture that allows this dynamic to exist. Now in many of these cases, where a replacement didn't arrive, it was because the reason for relocation was the commercial performance of the team. In those scenarios, you can have more sympathy with an owner, especially if the locale wasn't sufficiently supporting their side. So it's not entirely accurate to say that a market that can sustain a pro team can kiss goodbye to the prospect of ever having one again.
Who's overblowing it? I'm suggesting you essentially completely dismissed it by arguing players can just switch clubs. Perhaps ask Yedlin what happened in the Sunderland locker room during their relegation battles, or in the Newscastle locker room during their promotion battles. Ask him to compare those experiences to playing for Seattle. As for Jozy, he's just gotten comfortable and complacent, like most of our 23-30 yr old generation. Nothing is a cure all. The ugly side for me isn't relocation, and I say that as someone who was a fan of the Kings and the Maloofs tried to relocate the team to three different cities and as a previous fan of the Raiders, who will be relocated to Vegas. I say used to be as I'm no longer a fan of the NBA or the NFL due to that and the franchise system. Haven't watched a min of the NFL since news came out the Raiders were gone. Why would I? And it's not because of the relocation, it's because there's no real path to replace the team. The idea I should there and hope many years from now we steal another NFL team from another city is ludicrous to me. I simply no longer support the American franchise model. It's not just about MLS/soccer, it goes for the NBA/NFL too. The motives for profit above the fans/cities is just too far out of balance for me. BTW, I think relocation will become more common in MLS. Expansion helps prevent it. Once expansion stops, there's numerous interested cities still begging to get in, suddenly those cities/markets will look more attractive to teams with some ongoing issues. The Crew are hardly the only market struggling. There's a number struggling more.
Which has nothing to do with the closed league MLS, which is further illustrated by the Honduran, Panamanian, and Costa Rican efforts. I just think it's ironic that you say this ... when your market has TWO replacements before the Raiders have even left.
Altidore's problem was that he was awful in Europe outside of a league where even Michael Bradley could be a goal scorer, not that he got comfortable because of a closed league.
Exactly. Expansion is an alternate means of getting a team to relocation. Once expansion ends, given the absence of pro/rel, relocation is the only game in town. That's why the five relocations/contractions by MLS at this point in its development aren't a good sign imo.
Why does it have to be stealing another team? If the notion is that there are plenty of markets worthy then the league's could further expand, no? I'm not saying it's ideal, but college sports indicate there's a model for accommodating a lot of teams in a top flight and still keeping fan interest. If Columbus moves the team isn't devoid of soccer options, or even MLS options. They're simply out one owner. This motive is alive and well in pro/rel operations, thank you very much. From imbalanced sharing of league revenues to global fan tours there is an oligopoly of top football brands that are doing their finest to ensure they'll barely have to fret over other title challengers let alone relegation. The system does well in offering the egalitarian opportunity for everyone to reach the top but the reality is that other aspects of the system counteract the idea of parity. Why? Because profit. The NFL and NBA operate with a relative immunity from the financial issues of relocation, because they receive such huge funds from league media deals and, for the NFL, are a very unique product. MLS is not yet so blessed. So, struggling is one thing but being assured of not struggling in another market are something wholly different. FCD is struggling, but you don't see them racing for Tampa, let alone Austin. Why? Because there are real costs for relocation and there are few markets available that are clearly better financial prospects then those already with a team. A situation likely to get clearer over time, and especially as MLS looks to improve national TV ratings. In which case, are we sure we want to talk about moving a Philly or Chicago because their attendance is low at the moment? In that sense constant relocation or the threat thereof would be worse for TV deals than pro/rel, so I don't see it happening much more.
That's not my point. There are about 210 nations. I'd estimate that about 200 have promotion/relegation. 200 doesn't fit into 32.