Agreed. However, the teams do have to put money into a performance bond and demonstrate the ability to be financially viable over the course of 5 seasons. The net worth requirement is meant to ensure that leagues aren't dishing out franchises to all-and-sundry. Though given NASL's predicament, you might argue that the requirement isn't stringent enough.
I'm not normally one to invoke FIFA but if a team met the reqs, was designated as D1 and didn't get the same opportunity to qualify for the CCL, I have to think they'd get involved. We've seen recent precedent in India and Australia for example.
See my response above. MLS gets 3. Supporters Shield, MLS Cup, Conference winner. Currently every team that enters the Open Cup also technically has a chance. Edit: in fact, if the USSF wanted to give MLS the best chance of occupying all the berths, it might be better to just make qualification be exclusively via the USOC.
My point here is that an open pyramid outside of MLS is perfectly possible with an indefinite amount of money, coordination and will. Let's fantasize there is a NASL style USL breakaway with a D2 designation. That league could potentially grow into a D1. And teams that did form a breakaway league would be in a far better position than MLS was in 1996, or even 2006, with soccer specific stadiums and an existing fan base. Stadiums alone: Tampa Bay: 7,500 expandable to 18,000 Louisville*: 11,300 expandable Phoenix: 6,200 expandable to 20,000+ Las Vegas*: 8,000 seated (expandable?) Sacramento: 11,569 (city support for new stadium) North Carolina: 10,000 expandable San Antonio: expandable to 18,000+ *construction/conversion underway Then you have Indy, Detroit, St Louis, San Diego and Chicago USL as potential teams, plus a number of ambitious owners elsewhere. That could be a very competitive league. But before anyone could consider anything as ambitious and costly as that, people have to stop banging their head against the single-entity.
Rochester win the USOC in 1999. It can be done. Mind you I don't think it was very strong that year. Charleston beat Staten Island in the quarters.
It should be noted that the USSF reqs a re subject to change and they haven't had much issue granting waivers when deemed reasonable. I sincerely believe that if a team had all its other ducks in a row and could demonstrate strong business performance and long-term viability, USSF would have little issue with waiving the net worth requirement.
Ehh? Suppose I put up a competing D1 league in the Netherlands and I want to list the champion for the CL and the UEFA refuses, I cannot see what FIFA can do about that.
The situation in the US would differ because the KNVB would likely behave differently from the USSF. UEFA has the right to refuse if your competing league is not sanctioned by the KNVB, and I can't picture the KNVB sanctioning a second D1 league. But in the US, the USSF has stated that it is legally obligated to sanction any league at D1 level that meets its D1 standards. There can be more than one USSF sanctioned D1 league. If USSF sanctions a second D1 league but doesn't give that league a path to CONCACAF competitions, FIFA can certainly intervene.
Just as the second D1 league could "intervene" legally if denied CONCACAF CL spots. In that instance, the USSF could be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Are concacaf champions league spots that prestigious or lucrative that MLS would fall on the sword of dividing their ccl slots with a rival league. I think competing for market shares with a rival who has implemented pro/rel would be the bigger worry.
Or filed under "We'll do what we can to prevent it by continuing to have a conflict of interest with MLS through the SUM deal".
It would largely be the same situation. The Australian and Indian examples I referred to each involved FIFA getting involved due to "rival" groups taking umbrage. I don't see much reason to suspect that USSF wouldn't grant co-D1s the same amount of berths, or at least the same path.
A 32-36 team MLS D1 competing for market share against a D1 league who sheds its bottom 2 or 3 clubs every year is not a worry.
And these requirements would have enabled NASL to gain the D1 ranking they so craved. Hosted by their own petard.
After three teams collapsed financially, Italy's second tier has been suspended https://t.co/hUkN3heIdR— GOAL (@goal) September 18, 2018