Has anyone else been following this? I just caught on to it a couple of weeks ago once it hit the ESPN website. The NASL is officially returning and it is starting up with most of the USL division I teams. So far the teams making the jump to the new league are: Portland Timbers Montreal Impact Vancouver Whitecaps Carolina Railhawks Miami FC Minnesota Thunder Atlanta Silverbacks Tampa Bay Rowdies Crystal Palace Baltimore Rochester Raging Rhinos (just jumped on board yesterday) http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=706280&sec=us&cc=5901 And planned expansion teams in St. Louis and New York. The way I understand it, at least Vancouver is going to try to maintain a team in the NASL even after they join MLS in 2011 and the same with Montreal if they get a MLS team sometime in the future. I haven't followed the USL much but according to many on the USL board here on BS this is a good thing since I guess the USL is poorly run. There is also a lot of discussion whether the NASL at some point would get as big as MLS, eventhough they are clearly right now looking to run NASL as a minor league to MLS. Should MLS be worried though? It could be fun to watch and I hope they are successful, the stronger soccer gets in North America the better.
I've read a little about the rebirth of NASL, and how a big part of it came about because so many owners and coaches don't like the new owners of USL. I was disturbed by the comments about NASL and USL "competing" with MLS, too. If we're fighting over the same space, we'll just weaken the whole sport, and we can't afford that. We need to have one serious major league where all the best athletes in the country compete and the level of play keeps increasing. If we have two major leagues with half of the best athletes in each, we'll be stuck with second-rate soccer forever and neither league will ever attract enough of a crowd to be able to afford to keep the real talent from going overseas.
Very interesting... If MLS could get the MLS owners to go for it they should set up phased and compensation supported promotion relegation with this new league. The compensation support is to get owners to buy into the system. A fanciful 9 year plan: 2010: announce promotion relegation and infuse money into NASL to support it. Announce first year of relegation will occur after 2013 season (two years after next two MLS teams enter). 2013: MLS goes to single table. Lowest two teams play a home and away playoff (playoffs generate money, softening the blow), loser goes to NASL. NASL champion is promoted. MLS team that is demoted is given a lump sum of money as compensation (this was negotiated in 2009 with all owners agreeing it was fair compensation for dropping a league). 2014: playoff for losers as before, demotion compensation 80% of 2013. 2015: playoff for losers as before, demotion compensation 60% of 2013. 2016: Lowest four teams play a 3 game round-robin (reverse-home field advantage, the reason being to give financial compensation to most likely to demote team) to determine which two teams demote. 30% of 2013 compensation for each team. 2017: Two lowest teams are automatically demoted with 30% of of 2013 compensation for each team. (Of course, MLS may decide the "Demotion Playoff" is so financially successful that it continues it) 2018: Three lowest teams are automatically demoted with no compensation.
That could only leave the realm of complete fantasy if the NASL owners paid franchise fees to MLS. Which would make them MLS teams. Which kind of destroys the whole concept. I've heard that MLS looked into buying USL in the past, and passed on it. Why on earth would they buy it now and then try to fold it into MLS?
I don't see why so many people push for a relegation system in U.S. soccer. It doesn't fit the state of soccer here. A relegation system is only good if you have 40 or 50 teams that all want to compete and the top teams are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Then you set up promotion and relegation in order to keep the most competitive teams in your best division. But when we're having a tough time filling little 20,000 seat stadiums in big cities like L.A. Houston and Dallas, any talk about relegation is ridiculous. We're already relegated. Every team in the MLS. The only thing we should talk about is promotion because we all need to get promoted until the MLS makes the same amount of money and has the same level of play as the best leagues in the world. Until we get to that point, there's no money to throw around like the model proposed above, and relegation wouldn't enhance the competitive nature of the sport here. It would just be a way of looking at the financially struggling league and choosing which teams should go bankrupt this year.
in its own unique way MLS works. Given the state of the soccer market here in the US and especially the impact and challenges of the already crowded sports market here there is no way that a relegation/promotion scheme will work. Not now anyway. In 20 years maybe, but i even doubt then. MLS will continue to grow slowly and steadily and the other leagues will probably continue to do so as well, but i really don't see them combining efforts like a relegation/promotion system would demand for a long long time, if ever. We need to quit comparing the league to what the rest of the world does as that is a waste of time in many areas due to the unique situation we have here in the US the MLS and the powers that be there have to deal with. And please do not take this to mean that i support all that the MLS does, but in this area i think they are smart in not moving in this direction.
You've hit upon the heart of the matter. People support things like relegation systems and single table champions just because that's the way it's done other places. It's a kneejerk reaction. The play of the game needs to be universal. That should not change anywhere in the world. But the business that goes on behind the scenes needs to change and adapt to the environment where it's played. The kneejerk reaction of "we need a relegation system so we're like everywhere else" is no better than the American kneejerk reaction of "you need the game divided into quarters and bigger goals for higher scoring games so it's like every other sport."
I like the way MLS is now... But, I also know I would like there to be a relegation system with either USL or this new NASL. I'd like to see relegation in American baseball, also. I think it might be good to add to NCAA pointyball. It could be done in professional basketball. I'm serious that I think it would be good for those sports. And, I know better than to think it would happen in them. But, it could happen in the US with MLS now. It will never happen if it doesn't happen relatively early. The reason is once MLS gets big, the owners really will have too much to lose to be willing to risk it in such a system, just like Major League Baseball owners now have too much to lose than to go to such a system.
If relegation happens, I think it will be more likely when MLS is more established and the clubs are making money. Parity will not be as important so MLS will have the "haves" and the "have mores." Then the league splits into MLS-A and MLS-B. It will be like making a league above MLS that teams can promote into. I don't see any soccer specific stadiums being built if relegation is a possibility. I don't see any current USL-1 or NASL teams with any chance of surviving a full season in MSL and remaining profitable. Their stadiums seat between 5K and 14K. They are also small market teams so any promotions/relegations will probably result in lower TV ratings and less money from the networks. Does anyone think RSL would have had a stadium deal if relegation was possible? Just to get the deal we got required agreeing to a hefty fine if RSL leaves for any reason within 10 years.
I disagree. Right now every owner that starts or purchases a team is planning on losing money for several years but they are making the investment because they believe soccer is going to become huge in America in the next decade and give them a big return on their investment. If relegation was part of the formula, no one would be willing to take the risk of owning a team. Similarly, the only way we could get our stadium built in Sandy was to promise the team would be here for 10 years. If there was a chance we would get relegated to the minor leagues, we wouldn't have had a prayer of getting the stadium built. Garber has the league focused on a strategy of adding new teams and building stadiums. I think it's a smart approach because those will be the biggest drivers of turning MLS into a world class league. It's the only way we'll attract and keep the talent we need and it's the only way we'll become financially solvent. Relegation before the league is even profitable would be a death wish. In a few years, when owning a soccer team is profitable, maybe there will be a flood of new owners who want to try their hand at it, and then maybe relegation and promotion would make sense. I agree that if we want a relegation system we have to do it before teams are worth billions, but we also have to wait until they stop losing money.
Really, the place where relegation and promotion needs to start in America is college football. The BCS needs it badly. Then when Americans get used to the idea, maybe we can push for it to spread to Major League Baseball.
How would that help? The bottom 2-3 get relegated out of the BCS, and the top 2-3 of at-large conferences get in? That would change a couple teams, but the perennial winners would remain the same. What the BCS really needs is for the government to step in and say, "Sorry. Employ a playoff system or your football team can subsidize your school." If the schools were threatened with decreased funds through government subsidies, the system would change. Until then, ESPN and others will continue anointing the "National Champion" to the winner of two BCS conferences, and the big boys club will continue. Promotion and relegation wouldn't change anything that is of real importance. Personally, the idea of promotion and relegation is about appealing as this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TY9pNvT0YA"]YouTube- Redneck Knife Trick[/ame] Sure, it's hilarious, but it's also stupid. When's the last time Man U was relegated? Yep, never. There are 13 teams in the EPL that have never been relegated. So, you've only got 7 spots that are fighting to not get relegated. The 3 teams that enter in a year don't last, and 1 is almost always relegated the same year. In every year, exept '01-'02, one of the promoted teams is relegated at the end of the season. In the '97-'98 season, all three promoted teams were relegated (Link). How is this appealing? Yay, FC Dallas gets promoted and relegated every other year. No thanks. The way the MLS is structured right now is more appealing to me. The fight that's been present for the playoffs the last 2 years was more entertaining than the promotion/relegation idea. Same with the single table. Sure, use that for the playoff pairings, but if the top team of the season can't win the playoffs, then they aren't the champion. That's why the playoffs are so cool. Any team can win. It doesn't matter if you had a good or crappy streak during the season, but if you catch on fire at the end you can take it all. The current format works. Why change it?
It looks like neither league (USL and NASL) will get Division II sanctioning. http://www.ussoccer.com/News/News-Landing.aspx CHICAGO (Dec. 30, 2009) – The U.S. Soccer Board of Directors voted unanimously on Tuesday to not sanction either the USL or the NASL to operate a Division II professional league in 2010. The decision was made on the recommendation of the Professional League Task Force, which determined that neither organization on its own was able to provide a viable and sustainable operation during the upcoming season. Both organizations were unable to meet U.S. Soccer’s requirement of a minimum of eight viable teams for 2010. Despite the ruling, the U.S. Soccer Board of Directors has given both organizations seven days to try to work out an interim solution for the 2010 season. “After carefully reviewing the findings from the Task Force it was clear there are still too many uncertainties for both organizations, which would be extremely difficult to resolve in a timely fashion that would allow them to prepare for the 2010 season,” said U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati. “In the best interest of soccer in the United States, we decided to not sanction either league at this point. However, we did encourage both leagues to come together in the next week and attempt to develop another plan which would allow a single league to be approved on a provisional basis. We are committed to finding ways to improve the long-term viability of all leagues and teams and continue the growth of soccer in the United States.”
Why didn't they do this a month ago? Now 2 leagues who USSF say can't get their act together have to merge everything or there is no Div 2. Dumb.
agreed, it shouldve been done a month ago or even just a week ago. then the issue would be resolved by now.........theoretically
Well so far it looks like the PDL (D4) and USL2 (D3) look to be okay. One USL1 (D2) team, Charleston dropped down to USL2 and one USL2 team, CP Baltimore joined the NASL. But besides that, the USL2 is still around and is already releasing their schedules. The USSF ruling only affects USL1 and the new NASL. My biggest prob with this situation is that you have a group of disgruntled USL team owners and other good new club owners (ie St Louis) who hated the USL so much they left to form their own, competitor league. Now USSF is telling them to make nice for 2010 or nobody gets nothing. What happens in 2011? Won't both groups, even if they are forced to work together for 2010, work behind the scenes to kill the other? Nothing toxic about that. Ugh.
So does that eliminate all USL1 teams and NASL teams from competing in both the CONCACAF Championship and the US Open Cup?
Doubtful, USSF is going to allow one division 2 league. I believe too many teams MUST play, so someone will play. I expect teams like Montreal and PR Islanders who are in the CONCACAF and other teams like Rochester who are usually in the USOC will be there.
USSF unveils '10 structure of new 2nd division CHICAGO -- The U.S. Soccer Federation will oversee a second division league this year, temporarily ending a dispute between the United Soccer League and the North American Soccer League. The USSF last week refused to sanction either the USL or NASL, saying both were unable to meet the minimum requirement of eight viable teams. "We want to have stability," USSF president Sunil Gulati said during a telephone conference call. The second division this year will include two six-team conferences, with Austin, Minnesota, Portland (Ore.), Puerto Rico, Rochester and Tampa Bay in the USL Conference, and Baltimore, Carolina, Miami, Montreal, St. Louis and Vancouver in the NASL Conference. The agreement announced Thursday is for the 2010 season only. The USSF said it will develop new standards for second division leagues. Plans for second-division teams in Atlanta and New York were pushed back to at least 2011. Portland and Vancouver are slated to move up to Major League Soccer in 2011. Gulati is interested in long-term investors. "Any startup is challenged in today's economy. We've obviously had a number of challenges in this sport over time," he said. "What our goal is is that the people that are going to be investing in teams and in leagues understand what those challenges are and are realistic about what it's going to take to make it work financially. "And that's generally not going to mean a P&L that's in the black in the first or second year. And so if we see projections, from whether it's a team or an applicant, that says, `Listen, I understand I'm gong to have some losses but in the second year I'm going to make money,' we look at that very, very rigorously and challenge those assumptions."
Why do I have the feeling this will end up in court? You have a shotgun marriage of these two groups. I doubt they will let it go with, "We will do whatever the USSF says we should do."