But don't some of those cities have teams playing soccer now? Wouldn't those be phoenix teams? That's always the reasoning used when teams in Europe go under and are replaced.
The Dutch Lions are doing really well. They now have 3, check that, 4 sister teams and a formal partnership agreement with FC Twente of Eredivisie. The teams play year-round football except for New York Dutch Lions which are made up of Dutch ex-pros.
It's noteworthy that the MLS reserve teams that disappeared permanently are both Canadian. This occurred in the context of the CSA increasingly refusing to sanction Canadian clubs playing in US leagues below MLS level, in the run-up to the CPL being formed. From the beginning of the MLS partnership onward, most of the clubs folding in US lower leagues have been a direct result of the same structural changes that stabilized the leagues. They were clubs that would not be qualified to operate as professional clubs today. To some extent, this includes both the Austin Aztex and Penn FC. Austin was forced to go on hiatus because all the venues in the city meeting USL requirements (other than the cavernous UT-Austin football stadium) were severely damaged by flooding, and the club folded after repairs took much longer than expected and there was still no stadium available after a year-long hiatus. Penn FC is similarly on hiatus at the moment because of stadium issues. These would be one-time losses, and not a sign of ongoing instability.
I'm not going to argue this one way or the other, but generally don't phoenix teams have a connection to the former team? None of them do, in USL's case. For Charlotte, I'd say that's for the better, but it's not like the Independence are doing much with it. But, yes, some of these cities got a different club. That really has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, though.
Arizona United inherited much of the Phoenix FC roster, IIRC, and was founded literally the day after Phoenix FC folded. The thing about looking for continuity of identity is that few American soccer teams have a long history. That's why we get so many rebrands of existing clubs.
So whole leagues have gone. Meanwhile, when a single team in the Football League loses its license, some of the normal suspects get their knickers in a twist and drone on about how pro/rel makes teams unstable...Sounds like closed leagues make lower leagues in the US way more unstable.
That's disingenuous because you know full well they can't subsequently be promoted based on their performances on the field of play. It's called pro/rel for a reason...
Fair enough, but the context here is about Phoenix folding, not about Arizona United/Phoenix Rising taking up their former assets.
Which is fine for Dayton. Frankly, it's not surprising that their youth system is the better investment. That doesn't change the fact that they did not feel it was worthwhile to field a pro team.
It's disingenuous because neither one of them has an adult men's team anymore. Full stop. They are youth and U-23 clubs now. That's not "self-relegation", that's "permanently dropping that part of your business".
Sure it does: it's not as though these were prospective teams that got cold feet, these were clubs that operated, professionally, for 4 seasons before dropping out. Clearly they thought their business model included a pro side.
Interesting tidbit in all of this: Chicago Fire NEW owner Joe Mansueto's cost for the club put its value at 400m$ and that's without a stadium.
And they changed their minds after one season in several cases. FC New York were never likely to get their own stadium and it didn't help when St John's University dug up their field mid-season leaving them without a place to play. After forfeiting a game against Brooklyn Italians they gave up.
This whole post is GENERAL to the topic and not AT any single person: IMO it seems like talking about the FC NY's and some of these other 2-4yr operations actually highlights what is good about the structure/PLS/etc that have continued to come together over the last 20yrs here in the US. It will be harder and harder for this type of thing to happen to clubs (and leagues) because the opportunity for fly by night operations simply won't be there. Hell, even a "Deltas" will be hard to pull going forward. Sure, it can be painted in all sorts of lights be choosing the verbiage to describe things or being selective with facts ... however, what all of this IS doing, is helping to mitigate these situations from ever materializing. People want to talk about disingenuous yet have no problem tossing the Aztex into the "failed" pile without so much as an asterisks when it was a LITERAL act of God that caused their folding. FC NY went under MOSTLY due to something they didn't control. Yet somehow that's a knock against the system? What? OR, if that's how you want to play it then you can just STFU about the other variables with say BURY ... and then there's this type of stuff (and the next two points aren't @ you EF, you just happened to be the poster): .. which I don't necessarily disagree with, BUT .... in the context of this conversation there needs to be an equal condemning of the likes of a Tranmere that has to shut down their academy in that other system. and this: ... which again I don't necessarily disagree with, BUT ... in the context of this conversation there needs to be an equal condemning of the likes of Accrington Stanely or "insert failed club here" that has a Phoenix club playing in that other system. Those two points are a PERFECT illustration of where this discussion continually goes off the tracks. One side won't quite admit while the other side justifies and glosses over. Hell, in San Antonio we had a poster example of things. Hartman and the Scorps KNEW the support was there for a pro soccer team and while SSE sat on their USL rights doing nothing, he took the leap. We got confirmation that we (as a city/market/fans) should have a club, got a gorgeous SSS, have a modern pro soccer championship to enjoy, and a youth academy that is on par with all but the top end MLS/select outfits in the country. HOWEVER, Hartman saw the TRUTH in it all when he started talking to investors, partners, and digging into what it would take to not just push for an MLS franchise but to truly grow the club and push (within NASL). Plain and simple, despite being able to build a 35m$ special needs accessible park, the STAR soccer complex, AND the stadium .... this was a guy that found he was out of his league if the Scorps were to be ANYTHING more than what they were already. And please, don't bring up the whole philanthropic angle and whatnot with the monies ... I promise, unless you're from SA and/or have first hand knowledge by being someone that actually worked directly for Hartman, I've got a better working knowledge of all of that than you do. That WAS NOT an issue in this. In fact, it was actually part of what attracted two of the biggest investors he spoke with. Bottom line was that WELL BEFORE the rather large entree fee to MLS that we have today, the reality of becoming an MLS club was daunting and out of scope for a man that was very, very good on the business end even with big partners and investment. That was between '10 and '14. So, think about just how much has changed in 5yrs ... In SA ... I honestly don't see how pro/rel would have made anything BETTER at any juncture. I don't see how we'd have had our SSS built in that environment. I do feel we'd have gotten a club but I can't be sure it would have been at the level the Scorpions were. I don't see how pro/rel would have made any difference in the negotiations with the various partners (they knew exactly what was what with American soccer and one of them was very versed in "closed" systems). Could it have? MAYBE, but it wouldn't have changed a thing about the monies needed (which was the ultimate end point in all of the negotiations). What I CAN do is point to the fact that we DID get a club and a stadium because a very sound and savvy businessman could take a chance that only involved the inherent risk of the chance itself and wasn't open to a hundred other variables he had no control over it. Because of that I'm now going on a decade of having "my" team from "my" home and am still cheering on the ageless wonder Rafa Castillo (39) and San Antonio's very own Matt Cardone is in goal. I'm also getting to see soccer pedigree on display with Jack Barmby. Our academy pumps out quality and I've been able to see former SA players do well in MLS. I've been able to watch Cupsets and have a few club legends take shape. We've even already had a "legendary story" involving a trade for an all-star player for hotel accommodations! ... again, I don't see how pro/rel would have made any of that BETTER.
A Liga MX, MLS Super League, with 10 teams from each league joining, could necessitate pro/rel, and some sort of merger is being talked about. https://www.espn.com/soccer/concaca...in-the-future-mlb-might-provide-the-blueprint Lots of obstacles to overcome though.
They are trying to grow their Champions League, unlikely that they let something like that fly. At best, they could change the CCL to promote more clubs like UEFA but there hasn't been a "Super League" in UEFA for a reason
I don't know, USL's media rights are up in 2022, as is the SUM USSF deal, if I'm not mistaken. We have a joint Can/USA/Mex WC in 2026. TheDon was rattling his sabre at the Canadian PL last week. I could imagine some kind of deal where they keep the drawing MLS clubs, find Liga MX clubs willing to buy out the MLS deadweight/buy into SUM/forego pro/rel. The MLS deadweight joins USL, who bundle their rights with SUM. Liga MX still exists ast the Mexican 1st div, USL C is the Amer 1st division, Can PL is the Candian 1st division, the resulting merged league is the North American Super League (see what I did there ) I can't see a way to include the 3 canadian mls teams unless all get domed stadiums, I'm sure they'd take a balloon payment to join the CPL - hell there may even be a way for the owners to retain their SUM shares while leaving MLS. Perhaps as a hedge something could be worked into te media deal so that USL and LMX have a standing set cof SUM shares, to allow for occasional single team pro/rel when a market starts to falter or thrive - at that point your just transferring employees between SUMsidiaries right?