The FFA has no set criteria for expansion. The only obvious criteria is location/population size. We have some former NSL teams that will never get in with the current administration because of their ethnic origins. Your whole point is that football is a business. I don't believe that should be the #1 priority. Clubs were set up to represent a place and its people. Hence why I don't support foreign clubs.
I'm not going to sit here and continue rooting for the franchise model and the NFL because the NFL one day many years from now might decide to add an expansion team in Oakland. Chances of that are between slim and nil. Why would I support such a model? They're out of any hope of 1st division soccer for likely, ever. Seems the only chance, which is a snowball's chance in hell, is many years down the road rebuild and pay a then 300M expansion fee or something crazy like that. Ludicrous. Why would I support that? I don't know what you're attempting to argue. The franchise model is setup to create artificial demand by creating a monopoly. Screws numerous cities for the profit of a few. I didn't suggest in pro/rel they don't go after profit. The balance/priority is different.
They're out an MLS team and would need someone to pony up another cartel membership fee to get one back. Or get another MLS team to relocate from elsewhere...
I might be thinking of someone else, but didn't you previously voice support soccer fans in the US choosing La Liga and the EPL over MLS based purely on standard of play?
He leads the line for the best team in MLS history and has a goal every other game since joining Toronto.
I found a lot more -- were you only looking at current CSL clubs? 13 of the 32 clubs in the top two divisions have made at least one move of 100 km or farther between 2000 and 2016. Two clubs have each relocated 5 times since 2000, and several others have relocated more than once. The total was over 30 club relocations of 100 km or farther in 16 years, among 32 clubs!
A big issue with the P/R debate in the US context is a fact that gets ignored all the time in comparison to Europe. In Europe soccer started as an amateur pass time joy and it grew as people liked it. It grew in such a manner that clubs started to pay players to keep them/acquire them. So the pro clubs in essence where organic local based teams that already had a history with the place where they sprung up. Soccer and soccer affiliations have been from the start a local rooted identity. Soccer on the other hand in the USA seems to have seperate dimensions with no organic link between the amateur based practitioners and the professional clubs, that are purely based on business decisions. A USA pro club in essence is a different beast from a European pro club. Can anyone imagine Barcelona being moved to whatever place? Has there ever been in one of the big pro sport leagues in the USA a move of a more or less comparable club?
Well, it was our own fault combined with bad luck that kept us from qualifying or at least getting a play off chance.
I only went with clubs I could confirm as top tier as the time of relocation. I didn't look at ANY lower division clubs, at all. Yes, analogies help in discussions such as this. It aided the specific point I was making at that time. Which isn't the same thing as ... "without soccer" .... which is a line you lick to hopscotch at will in this discussion. You've done it several times. Depends ... Groups C, F, H, and I certainly don't look any more difficult than CONCACAF qualifying. If you're a "top" club it's actually drawn up to make it easier for you. At the time it happened the Brooklyn Dodgers, Minnesota Lakers, you could argue the Raiders (the first move).
You can't always go by population when it comes to international football standards but by whatever standard you go by, England's group was pretty easy. England population - 53.01 million Opponents - 16.1 million - Slovakia - 5.429 million - Scotland - 5.295 million - Slovenia - 2.065 million - Lithuania - 2.872 million - Malta - 436,947
Agreed, it was a very lame group. Otoh, many weren't. And of course 3 1/2 teams qualify from the CONCACAF hex, whereas just under 1 1/2 qualify from each European group.
There's also 4 rounds before the HEX, so 5 in total ... the "top" CONCACAF teams come in at round 4 overall.
I think that the potential damage that MLS will suffer w/fans outside of Columbus is over blow. Personally, I wish this weren't the case having undergone more or less the same thing w/ the original Hornets. But moves like the Dodgers or Lakers to LA or the Colts to Indianapolis seem ludicrous one day, then just part of the landscape in a few years. It's not that fans approve of these moves in general it's just that whatever antipathy the general fan feels will be outweighed by allegiance to his/her club. There's not really a way to express outrage at the league w/out visiting said revenge on ones own club. All local support is local.
I wasn't alive, but I'm pretty sure the Dodgers move was pretty earth shaking at the time. But that move reflects as much the changing population demographics in the US as much as fan culture. At the time, Brooklyn people would argue the Dodgers moved bc the O'Malley's were evil. (which may be true). But they also saw the financial potential a move out west would offer them. There were resources out there to exploit. Markets to corner. Untapped rents to sit on. Where is Barcelona going to move to that would be more Barcelona than Barcelona?
Exactly who I was gonna say. And maybe the Browns? That still bugs me and I haven't really watched the NFL for fifteen years. Neither is Barca, but then, who is?
True. But the Dodgers/Yankees rivalry was probably the defining feature of baseball in the US in the 50s, making up about half of the World Series in that decade, even if the Yankees won all but one. Baseball was the biggest sport in the US back then by far, so this was a big deal at the time.
Question about pro/rel: There are about a dozen cities that have expressed interest in MLS expansion teams. There are also those guys who are suing. Beyond that how many lower division clubs have expressed interest in promotion and relegation? How many would be capable of having stadiums and academies that would be necessary to take part in that divisional structure? (This is an honest question. I have no idea of the status of most lower division soccer teams in the US.)
Promotion/relegation in MLS is a dud..but is there "true" promotion/relegation at the youth levels? The federation breaking this down into 4 regions and having a tournament (federation sponsored) with the top 8/16 teams would be great tv..
There are a few lower division clubs that would be capable of moving up in an offseason and taking part in the structure: probably Sacramento, Cincinnati, and Phoenix. There are a number of lower division clubs that are calling for pro/rel, especially in the NASL and NPSL. But the interesting thing is that, other than possibly Miami FC, none of the clubs calling for pro/rel have anywhere near the financial resources to move up a division without folding, and even Miami FC lacks the infrastructure in place. It seems to me like most or all of the clubs that have expressed interest in pro/rel see it as a way to move up without spending any money.
They'd won 6 NL titles in 10 years .... which means 6 WS showings in 10 years. Outside of the Yankees, the Dodgers were baseball at that time. Looking over their roster for that time period also puts them into that category.