The "just shut up" part is your own delicate sensibilities, but as for the rest--I'm thinking out loud here. As noted before--none of this is very important. It's all just opining about league structure. Talk all you want. To be clear, I'm saying why I think pro/rel would damage what we have because the "soccer pie" just isn't that big to begin with. The only way relegation isn't a killer is if the fall from Div I isn't too dire. Right now, I'm afraid it would be. And there's reason to suspect that in Europe, the haves are going go suck way too much oxygen from the have-nots as well. If it's really only 10-12 people on one message board, why do you care?
Yes, we are. And we realize that the idea of pro/rel right now or in the foreseeable future (IMO) risks those clubs not only being relegated but going bust. So being loyal to our clubs we are against P/R.
Because of the myth that football clubs in a pro-rel environment don't go bust. The businesses go bust, I guess what you would call the intellectual property remains. There have been 61 cases of English clubs going into administration (bankruptcy protection) since Charlton in 1984 and 13 cases in Scotland since 2000.
The myth is that pro/rel promotes instability over a set of closed minor leagues. Clubs certainly took advantage of Administration laws to gain a sporting advantage. If you look at the rate since points penalties were applied you’ll see it’s a lot lower. Of course you’re going pretty low in the pyramid to come up with your number.
What is it with this money thing - every time anybody names ANY football club somebody starts complaining at how 'rich' they are! The answer does seem to be that they are all bloody rich, which is something we all know already, the fact of the matter is being in the Premier League is going to make you a LOT of money ANY club has that opportunity. Its ridiculous that people seem to be using the 'losers' as a stick to 'beat' the Pro/Rel system which is daft, you can't make EVERY club a winner!! And if you did what would the point be? If you have promotion you HAVE to have relegation and the joy of promotion offsets the despair of relegation which is what makes the game so bloody passionate.
No it contributes to the game being so passionate. The stakes are higher in an open system. The talk of money is related to USSF D1 professional league standards. You have to have a billionaire on board to be a D1 club. The argument is that you pretty much need one on board to be a D1 club in England. I noticed on that Wikipedia link that Barnsley are potentially the fourth richest club in England. Barnsley is so small it hasn't even been made a city and its in Sheffield and Leeds United country. It will be interesting to see how far they go.
So are clubs an integral part of the community, or merely businesses? Are supporters just consumers? I don't understand how one can on the one maintain that pro/rel is important because of the bond between supporter and club, and at the same time believe that all of it should be at the mercy of market forces. EDIT: I'm not being snarky here. I truly don't get how some American pro/rel advocates square that circle.
You don't have to be 'super rich' to be a Premier League club, however if you are a Premier League club you will be 'super rich' and there is NO reason why you shouldn't be rich enough in ALL the other divisions either! Money is one reward for every time you go up through the divisions.
26 in 15 years since points deductions were introduced. Given that the turnover at most of those clubs is no bigger than the local franchise restaurant, in normal circumstances many would have been allowed to fail. But it's football, so there's nearly always a savior, whether it's a Chinese conglomerate or a group of fans with buckets (luck of the draw really).
It can be both and I don't think that's contradictory. I do think the club has a role in the community (although it's on them to establish that bond). However, regardless of how beloved a club is, or how much it is woven into the community, it's still ultimately a business and the same realities of running a restaurant or a bookstore or a pub or a gas station apply. If you make risky decisions hoping for a payoff, that's still risk. Are Bolton or Bury "too big to fail"? If the stadium, colors, and supporters are still the same, does it matter much if it's technically operating under a different tax number?
A team overstretching to be promoted is no different than a business expanding too fast to gain market share. Not sure why this is so controversial.
Possibly, but I dont think the economics of football is quite that simple, but possibly. You could say the same about soccer here if substitute the word expenses for money.
Meanwhile oodles of teams in US minor leagues disappear every season. That’s disappear as opposed to chapter 11 reorganization.
Oodles? Is that still accurate? I won't argue that is used to be, but now it doesn't seem like it is. Especially if you discount teams following the Cosmos and Co. get rick quick schemes where were clearly doomed to fail from the start. Outside of that group, how many teams disappeared last year? The year before? The last 5 years?
Those are BigSoccer's MLS loyalist / anti-Pro/Rel in America sensibilities, not mine. This forum in general and most of its moderators in particular have been demonstrably and openly hostile to the concept for many years now. If "league structure" sentenced your DC United to a perpetual minor league existence while Baltimore United has a hammerlock on MLS, I bet you might rethink the whole concept of "importance." When MLS decides it wants a 30-plus team pie, any market not sharing in that pie will get nothing but crumbs. I think MLS overexpansion will damage the continued evolution, development, and strengthening of lower division soccer... long term. But even if FIFA grew a pair and required MLS to adopt Pro/Rel, there's no way in hell they'd ever force them to adopt it the very next year. There may be a timetable, and even then, that timetable would be flexible enough for MLS to minimize any perceived "damage" among its grandfathered franchises. The best way for the "haves" to "suck way too much oxygen from the have-nots" would be to split into a closed league and take all that money to buy off lower division English clubs to make way for an American-style minor league system... a cringeworthy thought for every English football fan I've ever met... except maybe Paul Berry. Because I've been here for almost 20 years and don't want to leave. Because I'm stubborn and like the forum format better than Twitter. And finally, because I don't like how those 10-12 people on one message board have ruined BigSoccer for an entire viewpoint of American soccer fans who look at this place with nothing but derision. And for good reason. #ProRelForUSA
Right after they force every other non P/R league int he world (men's and women's) to adopt it, right? You're not suggesting FIFA only force it on the U.S. are you?
So it boils down to your sense of permanent MLS entitlement. Good to know. A kid in Denver gets cradle to grave security embracing the status quo, while a kid in Louisville, Rochester, El Paso, Albuquerque, Fresno, Las Vegas, or any number of other cities gets nothing, no hope for the future, no hope of ever "playing our way in" like I just saw today (congrats to Tranmere, a club I don't care about in a league I don't follow) Yes, I could imagine NYC's ripoff of ManCity relegated. They'd probably have to leave Yankee Stadium. And maybe the Cosmos would take their place there... or in E Rutherford if RBNY were relegated. If either of those two MLS outlets were relegated and the Cosmos promoted, that'd leave a perfectly good stadium available.... for a fee, of course. Thank you for having us, @NYCosmos. 🙏🏻 It was a pleasure! #nycfcsp #fcspgoesUSA pic.twitter.com/0tyEhy5roG— FC St. Pauli (@fcstpauli) May 24, 2019 Frankly, after seeing some of the wildly inflated attendance figures from Yankee Stadium this season, a much smaller stadium might be a better fit for NYC anyway, Hofstra anyone? FIFA would only do this on a case-by-case basis. As it stands right now, I could see the Canadian Premier League develop towards a system of Pro/Rel by 2026 before I'd see one in USL. And I could see Montreal defect from MLS to CPL if that league starts to take off... maybe even Vancouver, but MLS wouldn't allow them to continue to call themselves the Whitecaps if they did... so there's that. I'd hoped that FIFA would have used the award of WC 2026 as leverage to move USSF and MLS towards adopting a more open system in the same way they required a major soccer league in return for WC 1994. I'd also hoped that a reformer would have won USSF president, but here we are, stuck with more conflicts of interest than ever... If USSF were mandated to move towards Pro/Rel, what would happen? Most likely, you'd either see a formalized USL move to Pro/Rel between D2 and D3, and if USSF Prez Eric Wynalda or Kyle Martino were in charge, you could see efforts to include NISA, an approved 10 year path for a new NASL and possibly NPSL Pro in the mix and at least an attempt for the highest D2 league(s) to get the opportunity to promote to MLS based on results on the field of play. You'd see MLS try to turn lemons into lemonade by overexpanding to 32 teams, with the top 18 -24 moved to a Premier MLS, leaving room for both expansion via promotion-only and no relegation or by a two tiered system of expansion fees, or a combination of both. MLS would, of course, if forced into Pro/Rel, opt for a major league Pro/Rel for themselves and a minor league Pro/Rel for everyone else... so yeah, a mixed bag or half a loaf or glass half full situation, to be sure... choose your torture.
Problem is, wealth is a huge advantage in professional team sports when salaries are unrestricted. Imagine if a millionaire could take up golf and buy Tiger Woods' arms. Worse still, imagine if Tiger Woods said "No - I obviously need these arns to compete" but his arms somehow wanted to go to the millionaires and stopped functioning properly, making them pretty useless to Woods. Then when that millionaires commandeers Tiger Woods' arms & wins a championship, they receive even more money, making them even wealthier, giving them more chance of buying bits of other golfers, increasing their dominance and weakening their opponents. Sounds absurd but that's basically how modern football works. I've no issue with clubs being wealthy or even having it as a factor in their success. However, it's got to the point where it's a must in becoming an elite club and is an overpowered attribute.