The combination of the USMNT failing to make the World Cup and the angst over a potential Columbus move to Austin seems to have everyone seething over the status of soccer in the US. Even the NASL anti-trust lawsuit seems to have re-ignited the pro/rel debate which has a lot of people questioning the American system. While I agree that leadership and structural changes are needed, can we pause for a moment and recognize that we've come a LONG way over the past 20-25 years and are still making progress? For example... Our U20's made the quarter finals of the World Cup, our U17s just won 5-0 to advance to the final 8, and our women's team are defending World Champs. Although this will ring hollow in light of the WC qualifying failure, the USMNT is also CONCACAF champs and have won the Gold Cup in 5 of the last 9 tournaments. Plus, until this most recent setback for 2018, we had established a trend of not only qualifying for the WC, but often making it out of group play. MLS is healthier than it has ever been and healthier than any American pro soccer league to come before it: We're about to set a league attendance record for the 4th year in a row and aggregate attendance has more than doubled just since 2010 (from 4 million to well over 8 million). There are 12 cities competing for 4 expansion slots, and ownership groups are willing to pay about $400 million each ($150 million expansion fee, plus $200 million for a new soccer-specific stadium) in order to have a senior division soccer team in the US. Plus, the eventual expansion to 28 teams will ensure MLS finally achieves a true national footprint that captures the vast majority of our country's largest markets. By 2018, 18 clubs will have soccer-specific stadiums, most of them world-class facilities. For the first 3 years of MLS, there were none. Overall quality of play has increased greatly since the creation of the DNP rule upon David Beckham's arrival a decade ago, and its expansion since then. We can debate whether the DNP model is the best format to grow the league going forward, but it has certainly enabled MLS to attract dozens of legit, international stars that we simply didn't have before. You can actually find MLS games on TV these days, thanks to the greater commitment from ESPN, Fox, and Univision. We've built a massive network of 149 youth academies in every territory, all the way down to the the U12 level, and we're starting to see major young stars emerge from that system. Also, while youth participation has dropped in virtually every other major US sport, it has remained steady and strong in soccer at 4 million registrants. USL is having success also. Not only do we finally have a stable and growing senior league, but our 2nd division is thriving as well with 30 teams competing in USL and at least 5 more looking to join. We continue to draw massive crowds for international matches. Ratings for EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, and Liga MX are all on the rise here in the US. We're still among the leaders in the race to host the 2026 World Cup. And by the way, the last World Cup we hosted in 1994 was the best-attended WC of all-time. That record stands today. For all of our wounds and challenges, some of them self-inflicted, soccer is nevertheless continuing to get bigger and better here in the US. Yes, changes and improvements are still needed, but the progress continues.
I guess deep down inside I always knew this day was coming. I had hoped that I could squeeze another 10-20 years out of this league before it became completely corrupted by greedy owners who don't take their roles as stewards of the club seriously. My love for MLS was built precisely because it was the exception to the rule. It was something different that cut against the grain in American sports. Some days I dreamed that maybe because of the unique composition of MLS owners, maybe we could aspire to be something different and better. I had lost faith in Garber many years ago, but I still held out hope that they wouldn't sink to this level so soon. Garber's job should be to filter out these types of grifter owners who will sabotage their own clubs to make a buck. Now it turns out that not only is he tolerant of people like Precourt, but he is actually complicit in the lies and corruption. Every MLS fan should ask themselves, when is it my turn? I'd watch my back if I was RSL, San Jose, Dallas etc ... The truth is that the Columbus market did not lose this club. Anyone trying to push that agenda is lying. This club was killed with premeditation and malicious intent.
I won't watch the Austin Precourts as long as Columbus doesn't have a team. Until he sells or Columbus gets a new Crew, it's just a bye on the schedule. But expecting Garber to control the owners has it backwards; he's their subordinate, not a supervisor.
I want to know of all these investments Precourt made but which failed to move their business metrics.
Has to be. No one real that's from round these parts would confuse the DP salary rule with the did not play abbreviation DNP.
I really hate it when people just reply "This" when they think a post is significant. Nevertheless... This.
Yep. Time for the contrarian hipsters to move on down the road. I'm sure the NWSL would love to have their support.
To me, I think it's time to shift the debate from arguing ad nauseum about the pros and cons of pro/rel to arguing over the drawbacks of the franchising system. Here we see one example. Why would anyone dedicate his time, passion, support and, yes, money for a team when at any time that team moves to another city? To me, the big argument about pro/rel isn't really pro/rel. It's the open system that comes with it. Your city, your community, your team. That is the ideal. The only barriers to entry are seed money and having to start at a very low level. How do Americans tolerate the constant shifting of teams? What city do the Raiders really belong? Are the Colts Baltimore or Indianapolis? Houston Oilers or Tennessee Titans? Seattle Sonics or Oklahoma Thunder? It's ridiculous. Yes, there are issues with several European countries over how they run their leagues but at least you won't see nonsense like London Red Devils or some BS like that.
I think words like the OP said is exactly what Reyna just pointed out as a major problem. "What I think has happened in the past 10 years is we’re confusing investment, expansion, growth, (U.S. Development Academy), and all these other things with progress," Reyna said. "All these things have sort of created a feeling that we’re progressing, but I call it expanding, growth and more fans. "From the general growth side it’s happening, but are we really progressing? When I look around at certain levels I don’t see progress happening."
I understand and respect that sentiment, but I think we're going over-board in placing all the blame on "greedy" owners. After all, where were all the other buyers when Columbus (and their stadium) was sold for a mere $68 million in 2013? If all it takes is committed ownership to succeed, wouldn't there have been a long line of potential buyers and a much higher price tag, especially with expansion fees having already reached $100 million at that time? The reality of any growing pro sports league is it will take time to find the optimal national footprint. Some expansion clubs will be a smash hit and other will fizzle. Some existing clubs will steadily grow and thrive and others will stagnate. EVERY league goes through these growing pains. It doesn't mean the entire enterprise is unworthy of our interest or support.
Totally irrelevant. The point is why did Precourt buy a club he had no intention of helping? Nobody forced him to buy the Crew. Could have just kept wis willie in his pants and maybe other offers would have come along. Since the club already has a stadium, the league could have operated the club for a number of years at no significant loss. All the while waiting for someone to make the right offer. The point is that this effort was never made. Several pages back I made the case that Columbus is a stronger market than several of the other Midwestern cities being rumored, like Cincinnati, St. Louis or Indianapolis. I have no problem with markets and clubs collapsing. I'm fine with sports Darwinism. But that's not what this is. This is sabotaging a club and a market on purpose as part of an agenda.
I like pro/rel. Doing it here is a discussion for elsewhere though. But I'm increasingly hating the American franchise system. Kings almost were pulled from Sac. Took a miracle to keep them but my interest in the Kings and the NBA plummeted. Used to watch all 82 games. Now maybe 15-20. Used to drive up to Sac 8-10 times to see games each season. Now I haven't been in a couple years, don't give a shit about their shiny new arena. Then as an NFL fan, my team the Raiders is getting relocated to Vegas. Now I don't watch. Don't watch the NFL either. Never will. Those were my two main American teams growing up and it's the franchise model which killed my interest in both the teams and the leagues. Then the soccer team I grew up with in NY was the Cosmos. My PE teacher played for them. That turned me onto the sport as a kid. He'd give us VHS tapes to watch. Say whatever you want to say about how they're run, the franchise model ensures they'll never, ever be in the 1st division here. So people don't have to agree. Many don't. But no amount or rhetoric is going to change my opinion on which system I prefer. The three teams in three sports I grew up with in some form or another have seen my interest killed in them because of the franchise model. And it's just a matter of time until the next owner takes a team from another fanbase for no other reason than personal profit. That is not what sports is about for me. I actually continually am surprised how many Americans back the model. It's just a few owners squeezing as much profit out of fans as they can and they'll ditch the community as soon as something better comes along.
Part of this is coming from the fact that I've waited so long to finally have my own team that I just can't join the pity party. Grew up playing soccer, been watching games on TV for years, took an interest in European teams and leagues, but I was almost 50 years old before a team finally came to my town (ATL) and I could truly embrace it and attend games in-person (other than the Silverbacks/Ruckus). So, there's an admitted 'don't be a buzzkill' aspect to what I'm saying. But I also believe we tend to overreact to every little piece of bad news or setback and lose sight of the overall trend. I remember when I was a youth and HS soccer player. There were no games on TV back then, no local team to follow, none of my friends played the game or had any interest in what I was doing with soccer, and the USMNT hadn't been to the World Cup in 40 years, and not a tear was shed over that either. Now, I'm watching several games on TV each week, attending games in sold-out stadiums, listening to sports talk stations on satellite radio dedicated 100% to soccer talk, and posting on message boards with fans even more knowledgeable and passionate than me. And when it comes to the USMNT, literally millions of people are mourning the fact that there will be no massive game-watching parties with glorious goal celebrations and "I believe" chants next year. Finally, the game is all around us and people actually care.
Cincinnati already significantly out-draws Columbus and they are just a USL team. Meanwhile, if they could reach a stadium deal in St. Louis, they'd double the attendance of Columbus overnight. I don't think it amounts to outright sabotage, but I think it would be entirely accurate and fair to say that Precourt intended to move the team the day he bought it. He knew the move wouldn't happen right away, but I don't think he ever intended to keep them in Columbus. If someone bought the Crew today and moved them to another city, would that be viewed differently than waiting 4 years to do so? Also, it's entirely relevant to ask why the club and its stadium combined couldn't net more than $68 million at a time when it was still owned by the Hunt Group and the combo of expansion fees ($100 million) and new stadiums ($150 million or more) were at least triple that price. Point being, the club wasn't particularly valuable under the old owner either.
You are crazy... This isn't a little piece of bad news nor an overreaction. This Is as BAD as it's gets. The league Is moving a team that was the bedrock of the league in it's really ugly years. It was the beacon that showed the other teams the path to success.. they sold their soul to the devil.