That goes into the rules and guidelines, yes. Not to administer or regulating. Again, USSF doesn't control leagues. Does NCAA control leagues (or in case conferences)? Does USA Basketball control NBA?
Courts have ruled that the Stevens Act does not give the USSF regulatory authority over the professional game outside of issues directly related to fielding Olympic teams. See Champions World v. USSF. The pro leagues submit to USSF sanctioning not because of any federal law requirement, but rather to keep themselves in good standing with FIFA. Among other things they need to be connected to FIFA in order to participate in the international transfer system.
I do live here - I think M, and clearly Feyenoordfan, don't. I don't expect law to change. I don't expect much to change, actually, and think that a lot of what peole want for soccer here - competitive natl teams, watchable pro/college/youth soccer - could be achieved in the current system with a lot of creating thinking - we're america after all. But there is a chance that someone could view SUM as having too muhc influence, and then the arbitration/forming new fed sections could come into play. A longshot, but Friday nights are made for believing in longshots...
Lawmakers already pressured Garber/SUM to explain what SUM's role is within US Soccer. Please explain the "too much influence" part? "Forming new fed" isn't an answer. Its not going to be sanctioned by FIFA and USOPC. Not gonna happen, dude.
It only sanctions leagues that actively request to be sanctioned. Yeah, I know. If an organization feels that USSF is not independent enough, they could complain to CONCACAF, which is run by the Mexican FA, which is in run by LIGA MX (55% of the votes), which is run by 5 ownership groups (16 teams), and uses SUM as its marketing partner.
I think I did - having the purchase of SUM shares be the gatekeeper for D1 - too much influence. What if they get a sweetheart deal from some other soccer marketing company?
No not Traffic, or Rocco. I"m just sayin, if you can't take the best deal because it throws off your league structure....that's a lot of influence. Too much? Some say yes, some say no....
Purchasing SUM shares is not required for D1. MLS owners are not required to invest in SUM, and also people could form another league and seek D1 sanctioning. What if they did? Is there some other company interested in the TV rights to five USA hex home games and a bunch of USMNT and USWNT friendlies? Or, for the 2026 cycle, subtract the hex games.
I tend to agree, but I repped M's post because it's certainly something that needs to be closely scrutinized.
They would need to get D1 sanctioning from the body that is currently bankrolled by the incumbent D1 league. This is about as textbook of a definition of a conflict of interest as you can get. So while, no - the PLS does not require purchasing shares in SUM for division 1, this is completely ignoring the reality of our situation.
Really, do you know which MLS teams are free and clear of SUM? Also, "build a better mousetrap" for those of you playing thread bingo, hasn't been up in about 20 pages or so. Cartel....
So theoretically, a different USSF could view the SUM/MLS relationship differently, and MLS would want to abide in order to stay in FIFA's good graces? I mean, after the lawsuits etc....sound like de facto "USSF has jurisdiction over pro soccer". I'll now play "then MLS can give up their D1 sanction since they don't need it to do their thing." Which really has to help on the bingo card....
Where do you think that US Soccer's portion of SUM broadcasting money will go to? Offsetting expenses created by US Soccer, since US Soccer is non-profit governing body. The only "conflict of interest" I see here is Garber being SUM's CEO and having a seat on the professional council table. Yet not illegal.
Hold up...........The USSF annual budget is greater than $35M. The USSF has a multitude of revenue streams outside of their marketing deal with SUM. https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/financial-information
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you asking who will bankroll the USSF, if not SUM? I don't see how that's relevant. A pretty low bar you're setting for the federation there. Oh so everything must be above board, then.
Even taking this at face value, that is fully a quarter of their annual revenue, and that's assuming that none of the $50 million in "sponsorships and royalties" don't come from SUM.
I think you're mentioning SUM (a parent company of MLS) as the key component bankrolling US Soccer. Am I misunderstanding you? Just giving out the realities, dude. You might have problems with it, I do as well.
What I am saying is that there is $50 million in royalties and sponsorships, on top of $32 million from the USMNT. Is SUM directly or indirectly involved in that?
But what I am saying is that even just that is a full quarter of their revenue. Are we seriously saying that's insignificant to their bottom line?
Manchester United lost from Bournemouth, which was equal in points and table standing, so of importance who would hop over the other one. Sofar United cruising comfortably for a spot in the top 6 by Christmas.