This is where I am as well. Let's see what Peter Wilt can do. From his 10 point plan. But it's hard: http://www.nisaofficial.com/2017/12/01/nisa-update/ 15 letters of intent turned into 8 applications,with 3 accepted and 4 returned with requests for improvement. And this is to meet a division 3 standard. Hopefully the former NASL teams will join in, although their owners are probably more trouble than they're worth. But this is a good opportunity to see how much pro/rel really matters to people
My point was specific to "major league" as I stated. Do you think it's feasible that, in any sport, a league could bridge the gap today?
This is all I think people on the colloquial "this side of the table" have asked of those that believe in the system. If it does all you believe, go do it. If their theories are correct, there's every reason for them to be optimistic. It's also a little satisfying to see that Wilt is taking an approach to implementing pro/rel that I've always advocated. No pro/rel until the existing tier is 'full', after which you add additional tiers as appropriate.
You claimed that they would be bounded by the requirements of doing well in their league. I'm arguing that there's a difference between that, and endeavouring to be the best team they can, based on their own circumstances and capabilities. In the past, you've made the point that using the existing MLS table as a hypothetical for what would happen under pro/rel, isn't very useful because we don't know what approach those clubs would take in that system. By the same token, I would suggest that being consigned to League Two versus the Premiership, isn't the same as participating in NASL, NISA or USL. League Two after all, is a hierarchical division of the EFL. The US leagues in question, do not function as explicit tiers. Their divisional status (a function of their continental and international governing bodies requiring a "Division 1" designation for purposes of international club competition) is effectively a rating. If a quorum of billionaires decided to purchase a handful of clubs in this hypothetical closed League Two, such clubs could theoretically acquire talent enough to be better than Spurs or Liverpool. In the US system, such a league would be able to obtain a higher divisional status. Therefore, teams are not explicitly consigned to a permanent divisional status. Of course, I realise that it is easier for a Bournemouth to move up independently in an open system, if they alone have the means.
This is an attitude that you can only have if there are enough clubs to replace the relegated clubs, and if the very existence of the sport at professional level isn't put at risk by clubs going under.
It's a little bit funny. The whole "going under" scenario hinges on the way the mls is set up with high entrance fees and the Pro scene survival linked to that. If you start with that kind of set up, closed league with small number of clubs, you bet relegation is going to bring havoc. But when let's say pro football is organized by owners of clubs in a facilitating league, gradually growing in numbers, the gap isnot going to be that big and the resulting eventual relegation of a club less so a disaster then in the mls system. The whole disaster scenario is based on the way mls has organized it. But who says it will be the only way soccer will be organized. Soccer still isnot big in the USA, but growing and at some point a critical mass will be reached. Will supporters be satisfied with the limited number of clubs ala the other sports or will entrepreneurs grab the chance and fill the space left open.
Get back to me when your hypothetical "whole league gets promoted" scenario comes even remotely to pass. And using the AFL as a point is long past its sell-by date. Meanwhile, I'll note that all of Swansea, Bournmouth, Burnley, Brighton and Huddersfield have played at the fourth level in the last 40 years. And if Wolves get promoted this season, that will make a sixth team that fits that bill.
well nearly 100 years of history and having a fourth division will likely provide examples of that ... Meanwhile wanna compare the number of first time Premier League clubs VS first time MLS clubs the last 5-8 years?
It was set up that way because their was a barren soccer landscape and their was substantial financial risk in forming MLS. Note that a number of open leagues existed in that relative vacuum, some or which were generations old, yet they never evolved in the way European leagues did. The concern is that it took a long time, with much nurturing and tweaking to get MLS to this point alone. It was necessary to fill that void.
Given the history of professional soccer in the USA, I'd argue that what you refer to as '(t)he whole "going under" scenario' isn't some artificial problem created by MLS. It was the rule, not the exception, here, for many decades.
Yep. To back you up, the longest lasting league was the American Soccer League 1933-1983. Here's a list of teams. Allentown 1939 Baltimore Americans 1939-1949 Baltimore Bays 1973 Baltimore Canton 1934-1936 Baltimore Flyers 1967-1968 Baltimore German 1938-1939 Baltimore Pompei 1957-1961 Baltimore Rockets 1953-1957 Baltimore S.C. 1936-1942 Baltimore St. Gerard's 1966-1967 Baltimore Stars 1972 Bethlehem Hungarians 1938-1939 Boca Juniors 1963-1964 Boston Astros 1969-1975 Boston Metros 1963-1964 Boston Tigers 1965-1968 Brookhattan 1938-1957 Brookhattan-Galicia 1957-1959 Brooklyn Celtic 1933-1935 Brooklyn F.C. 1933-1934 Brooklyn Giants 1942-1943 Brooklyn Hakoah 1948-1956 Brooklyn Hispano 1933-1956 Brooklyn Italians 1956-1961 Brooklyn St. Mary's Celtics 1935-1942 Brooklyn Wanderers 1942-1948 California Sunshine 1977-1980 Carolina Lightnin' 1981-1983 Chicago Americans 1972 Chicago Cats 1975-1976 Cincinnati Comets 1972-1975 Cleveland Cobras 1975-1981 Cleveland Stars 1972-1973 Colombo 1959-1960 Columbus Magic 1979-1980 Connecticut Wildcats 1973-1974 Connecticut Yankees 1975-1978 Dallas Americans 1983 Deleware Wings 1972-1974 Detroit Express 1981-1983 Detroit Mustangs 1972-1973 Detroit S.C. 1972 Elizabeth Falcons 1954-1959 Falcons S.C. 1959-1962 Falcons-Warsaw 1962-1964 Fall River Astros 1967-1968 Fall River S.C. 1967-1968 Galicia-Honduras 1961-1962 Galicia S.C. 1959-1961 Gary Tigers 1973 Georgia Generals 1982 Golden Gate Gales 1980 Hartford Kings 1966-1968 Hartford S.C. 1964-1966 Indiana Tigers 1974 Indy Daredevils 1978-1979 Inter-Brooklyn Italians 1961-1962 Inter S.C. 1962-1963 & 1965-1966 Jacksonville Tea Men 1983 Kearny Americans 1941-1953 Kearny Celtic 1942-1951 Kearny Irish 1933-1942 Kearny Scots 1933-1941 Las Vegas Seagulls 1979 Los Angeles Skyhawks 1976-1979 Ludlow Lusitano 1955-1956 & 1957-1958 Ludlow S.C. 1956-1957 Miami Americans 1980 Nashville Diamonds 1982 New Brunswick Hungarian 1967-1969 New Brunswick Hungarian-Americans 1963-1967 New England Oceaneers 1977 New England Sharks 1981 New Jersey Americans 1976-1979 New Jersey Brewers 1973-1975 New Jersey Schaefer Brewers 1972 New York Americans 1933-1956 New York Apollo 1973-1979 New York Brookhattan 1933-1938 New York Eagles 1978-1979 & 1981 New York Greeks 1971-1972 New York Hakoah 1956-1962 New York Hakoah-Americans 1962-1964 New York Inter 1966-1969 New York United 1980-1981 Newark Falcons 1964-1967 Newark Germans 1933-1937 Newark Ukrainian-Sitch 1962-1970 Nor'East United 1972 Oakland Buccaneers 1976 Oklahoma City Slickers 1982-1983 Olimpia 1965-1967 Passon Phillies 1936-1938 Paterson Caledonian 1936-1938 Paterson F.C. 1939-1941 Pennsylvania Stoners 1979-1983 Philadelphia 1938-1939 Philadelphia Americans 1941-1953 Philadelphia German-Americans 1933-1941 Philadelphia Nationals 1941-1954 Philadelphia Passon 1939-1941 Philadelphia Spartans 1969-1972 Philadelphia Ukrainians 1957-1958 Philadelphia Ukrainians 1969-1970 Phoenix Fire 1980 (Preseason) Pittsburgh Cannons 1972 Pittsburgh Miners 1975 Ponta Delgada S.C. 1951-1953 Rhode Island Oceaneers 1974-1976 Rochester Flash 1981-1982 Rochester Lancers 1967-1969 Roma S.C. 1964-1968 Sacramento Gold 1978-1980 Sacramento Spirits 1976-1977 St. Louis Frogs 1972 St. Louis Mules 1972 Santa Barbara Condors 1977 Southern California Lazers 1978 Syracuse Scorpions 1969-1970 Syracuse Suns 1971 & 1973-1974 Tacoma Tides 1976 Trenton Americans 1953-1955 Trenton Athletics 1948-1951 Trenton Highlanders 1938-1939 Uhrik Truckers 1953-1965 Ukrainian Nationals 1957-1968 Utah Golden Spikers 1976 Utah Pioneers 1976 Virginia Capitol Cavaliers 1971 Washington Cavaliers 1972 Washington Darts 1967-1969 Worcester Astros 1975
MLS is responsible for much of the growth we've had. We had the kind of league you're talking about before MLS, and... in 1996, the ten MLS teams were two-thirds of all the fully professional clubs in the US. In 1995, there were only four fully professional clubs in the US, playing in a league with two Canadian clubs. The problem with US travel distances is that you have to go big, like MLS did, to generate enough revenue to exist as a national league. Otherwise the travel costs get overwhelming -- some of the more isolated USL teams spend as much on travel as they do on player wages. The break-even attendance level is much higher in the US than in Europe, and clubs here have to draw that attendance in a country where soccer is only the fifth most popular spectator sport. That's a massive obstacle to completely organic growth here.
That's not an explanation as to why it's not feasible. The US soccer landscape is still developing. I already noted that it was easier for that type of club to move up the tiers individually in an open system. That doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between a team being consigned to a specific tier and being part of an independent league competition with access to designations based on set criteria. I didn't make the AFL point, but nonetheless, there is a mechanism there by which a collection of well-resourced investors can build an independent D1 if the demand is there. A dozen teams with leases to 15k seater venues, 8 of which are in MSAs above 1m, with a somewhat national distribution. The infrastructure is there and we've heard ad nauseum that the interest and money is there. MLS isn't offering insurmountable salaries to the majority of its players. Hypothetical it may be. But my point was that MLS/USL/NASL/NISA, is not analogous with EPL/EFLC/EFL1/EFL2. And while USL receiving a D2 designation isn't a gap bridged between a "minor" and "major" league, it's still significant as a gap bridged and a demonstration of the mechanism in place. USL clubs certainly had a grander ambition than being good enough to win their league.
Of course it's hard. Starting a league from scratch is always hard... So was starting MLS when it aimed to begin play in 1995... er uh... 1996... and FIFA actually wanted that league fully in place BEFORE the start of the 1994 World Cup... Major League Soccer To Start In '96 Jerry Trecker November 17, 1994|By JERRY TRECKER; Courant Sports Columnist Putting it together * Major League Soccer will kick off with at least 10 teams in April 1996, a year later than expected: * Where: Boston; Chicago, Columbus, Ohio; New York-New Jersey; Los Angeles; San Jose, Calif., Tampa and Washington were confirmed as sites. (Previously-announced Long Island, without a stadium, will begin when a new stadium is ready or an interim site can be prepared.) * To come: Two sites will be chosen from among Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, San Diego, Seattle and Tulsa. (MLS said it would consider Canadian sites, a change of policy.) * In 1995: MLS said it will ``keep top-level soccer in the forefront'' by staging international matches in league cities.
And I truly don't get your accusations. The people I know who want ProRel in this country don't want "people's clubs to go out of business" and certainly do not have an "obsession with punishment." Here were my thoughts on the subject circa 2016...