Would love that. In some ways my favorite soccer supporting experiences still date to the two years we lived in Charleston and had season tix to the Battery.
By saying "professional league", I specifically didn't limit my comment to soccer. I mentioned the AFL because that is an argument that has been made many times on this thread. And the fact that in the last half century, no league has successfully challenged the major league in any sport is quite telling. And, btw, I don't consider the WHL/NHL "merger" to be a "successful challenge" given that the former folded all of its franchises as part of that agreement.
I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just mentioned that the US soccer landscape is still developing. I agree that supplanting a highly successful major league in a mature and developed landscape is going to be very difficult. Well it's a prime example. Much like the Football Alliance and the Football League, which also occurred while the landscape was developing. I take it you mean the WHA/NHL merger? Most of those folded franchises were replaced by NHL expansion teams. I agree that describing it as a resounding success is dubious though. On one hand the WHA did produce an "on field" product that rivaled the NHL, by virtue of spending big and attracting major talent (and giving Wayne Gretzky his start). Their expansive approach to scouting was also somewhat revolutionary for the NHL. At the same time, it seems that the high-spending was not sustainable and the league was in a state of instability for much of the time. The remaining ownership did still have some leverage in the merger though, despite the NHL having the stronger hand, and some of its teams were represented in the NHL, so it wasn't a true failure either.
I look the top 10 USL/NASL teams' for average attendance. 6 are willing to fork out $300-$400 million to join MLS 2 are hybrid affiliates (the coaches and players are provided by MLS affiliate) 1 is likely to join the Canadian Premier League The other team is Louisville That is the ideal scenario. When you have 10-15 non-MLS teams pulling in 15,000 fans in purpose built stadiums we can talk. The disaster hit ASL v1 in 1933, ASL v2 in 1983, NASL v1 in 1984 and NASL v2 very soon. MLS has prevented a repeats of those disasters. Supporter's don't have the money. The money men will run the league just as they do in all American sports. Don Garber's best mate at NFL has just signed a new contract worth $200 million over 5 years.
Just because someone uses the word punishment in a sentence doesn't automatically mean they're obsessed with punishment. I've read that man's postings for months (despite being barred from responding) and am baffled how @bigredfutbol could come to that conclusion. If I went on my NextDoor app to complain that the little punks/hoodlums in my neighborhood who've been breaking into cars recently, stealing phone chargers, loose change, and half bags of pistachios should be "punished," it doesn't automatically make me obsessed with punishment... I'm not sure his statement isn't far from my "stated position." @feyenoordsoccerfan recognizes that in his country and many others with Pro/Rel, the owners have to be prepared for the significant drop in income which is suitable punishment for fielding a piss poor team. I agree with his sentiment.
"I don't see why you would think there's an obsession with punishment" you say, followed by the assertion that "punishment" is the appropriate fate of a team having a bad year. I can't help you if you don't see it.
I think it IS ridiculous to think that there should be a punishment for having a bad season. Sports, by definition, involves winning and losing. So no matter what happens, SOMEONE has to lose every year. It's a mathematical certainty. Getting knocked out of a league should be reserved for extreme financial hardship, or blatant misconduct like match fixing.
Saying "obsesssed" was maybe a slightly heavier term than necessary. Then again, so is "punishment". It goes without saying that if there are financial pitfalls, you prepare for them, but by that virtue, isn't that a further argument against p/r, if adopting it carries the serious risk of relegated teams going under? That's always been a major concern of mine about adopting p/r prematurely. The idea was never meant as a punishment/reward mechanism. It was logistical. Now deserving to go bankrupt because you were fiscally irresponsible is indeed your own fault and you do deserve that. This is true regardless of the system. But nowhere in soccer do the participants or governing body, actively cultivate financial hardship as a rod to beat struggling teams. In fact, mechanisms such as Financial Fair Play and parachute payments are examples of trying to mitigate that kind of potential. Given that MLS is by design a competitive league, teams can finish in the bottom positions despite their best and most sincere efforts to construct a winning team. I don't think those teams deserve to be punished or to face financial jeopardy. If an Olympian finishes last in a race, the idea of punishing them doesn't cross our minds. If the cost of competing in the Olympics could bankrupt them, I think society would be more apt to have whip-round to help them out than to declare it a right and just outcome. One final point: one of the biggest stories in US domestic soccer right now, is the potential relocation of the Columbus Crew. The overwhelming majority of us don't want that team moved and in that scenario, just as we've discussed about the concept in general on this thread, there's a lot of talk about what a tragedy it would be for the fans and the city to lose their team. Yet time and time again, when the argument is raised of pro/rel potentially causing a relegated team to go under, it's met with a terse "So be it! Let the market decide!". Where is the concern for the fans and their city then?
I probably should/could have said "focus on" rather than "obsession with" although I assume @feyenoordsoccerfan is able to deal with it.
That was kinda my point--if you're going to take a cold, market-oriented approach to all this, well fine then--but don't turn around and claim that we're talking about clubs with an organic connection to supporters and community. You can't have it both ways.
But it wasn't ... and was aimed at a point that you have stated wasn't your stance. Sooooo yeah, not at all. So? That was merely a condition of the merger as the owners (most of them) were directly granted expansion franchises with the NHL. It absolutely successful in so much that the MOLSON FAMILY (MTL Canadians) reversed their stance on the merger due to a boycott of their products ... they won the court case on the reserve clause ... The WHL placed teams in NHL markets to directly compete with them forcing the NHL to expand further ... just TWO YEARS after being born the NHL was on the line talking merger But no, it wasn't a successful challenge at all ... but uh Gee ... why in the world would one ever come to that conclusion?[/QUOTE]
I think it is ridiculous that teams can continue to remain part of the major league despite failing season after season. The beauty of pro/rel is that it keeps teams "honest" and allows other teams to improve their standing based on their performances on the field of play. And, of course, relegated teams can and often do regain their higher status in a subsequent season. Remaining in a league should be reserved for teams that aren't the worst performers.
Four of the WHA owners were granted expansion franchises. All the WHA teams folded. It was pretty much a failure, imo. For example, those four WHA teams actually had to pay a franchise fee for their expansion franchises. Additionally, they lost all the players they had when WHA teams. Some merger!
Here's my take on the concept for American promotion and relegation; I'm opposed to it entirely, but for good reason. For most countries that have that institution set up,they've had decades (and centuries in some cases) to build up their rank and file and have gone through enough trials and tribulations to make the process feasible on their levels. American soccer does not have that experience. To put it in a botanical perspective, the major countries of soccer (predominantly the Western European nations) are like mighty oak trees; large, strong, and laugh at the forces of nature. American soccer is a lot like those younglings people buy and plant when they finish construction on a facility and want to start up some landscaping. It is still fragile, and can easily be broken by a snot-nosed brat who yanks on the trunk too hard. To me, Pro/Relots on social media are the tree-puller in this situation. What I mean by this is that I always feel like these people who constantly use #ProRelForUSA on Twitter and Facebook want all of the glory that comes with the idea, but don't understand entirely the pitfalls of executing such a strategy. They argue that somehow, someway, pro/rel will immediately and instantly fix everything wrong with US soccer and make it the bestest thing around. I just think that's incredibly shortsighted to assume that it'll automatically lead to dozens of professional grade venues and organizations throughout the country. One of the reasons why Rochester in the USL decided to take 2018 off was due to financial pressure, and is why clubs like Wilmington, Charlotte Eagles, and Dayton went down to PDL. The organization can't afford D2, and will likely join USL D3 when it finally comes to fruition. Under this Pro/Rel system, if a club that can't afford a higher level suddenly is thrusted upward, they likely won't compete unless they receive a huge financial boost, and that can only be accomplished with TV and advertisement money. USL only has local TV stations for some of their clubs, YouTube, and ESPN3 for major games. Plus, the American concept of "minor leagues" is different from, say, the Spanish or Italian concept. The inverse is true if a major market is demoted from the top flight; it could hurt revenue from viewership, and that's how anybody makes money on stuff off TV. The more viewers you get, the more money you (typically; pro wrestling is the common exemption to this rule) receive. Losing a market like Chicago or Los Angeles from that list for a year or more can be detrimental. The only way I can see this eventually working is if we get to the point where, say, the Harrisburg City Islanders play in a 14,000 seat venue of their own instead of a high school football field. This will require a lot of time and resources, and that is decades away. I don't want to rock the boat just yet simply because US soccer needs to walk before it can run.
Worth noting that 10 clubs failed within 5 years of the English Second Division being launched and another 4 by it's tenth anniversary. Growing pains.
Why? They have the money. It takes a lot of that to operate even a modest professional sports team. Does it? Or does it incentivize smaller teams to forego long-term development in favor of finding a a way to grind out just enough results to survive the drop? Which is great, and fun, and exciting. But here in the USA, I'm not so sure most MLS teams could survive a spell in the lower division. And isn't he ultimate goal to have professional soccer available? I'm not sure the difference between the 17th and 18th place teams in the EPL is really all that significant.
I know some Chicago Fire fans who feel if a strong 2nd div were available to relegate to, they'd be more than happy to experience relegation after years of frustration with Hauptmann. It might even light a Fire under them (pun intended). I also know that the team playing down the street from me who only won 5 games in 2016 should never have been "promoted" alongside the rest of USL to the 2nd division. USSF was horribly incompetent in not splitting the MLS2 clubs and weaker independent franchises into D3... and now we are starting to see the results in real time. I'll wager that most MLS2 teams will voluntarily relegate themselves to D3 by the time 2019 rolls around... I can't help you if you can't even admit that some forms "punishment" can be appropriate, justified and ultimately helpful. A punishment involving relegation would, in my estimation, be more appropriate than the punishment that Columbus may ultimately experience... that of death by relocation.
It would take less money if teams didn't have to pay a cartel membership fee. How does this "long-term development" thing work when teams are locked into a particular league and don't have the ability to improve their status based on their performances on the field of play? Sounds like an argument for including every team in the MLS playoffs.
Again, there is nothing, other than costs, preventing someone from starting a whole pro/rel league pyramid. If pro/rel actually spurs those billions of dollars in investment that its proponents say are being unfairly kept out of MLS, those same investors who are supposedly being kept out could easily brush MLS aside. The fact that they haven't done so is a sign that the investors simply aren't there.