The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

Remember, Kroenke bought in before Chivas and Salt Lake (by a few months). So they did have 1 new investor.

 

Kroenke's purchase meant AEG was down to 'only' 50% of the league, and was the first positive step in some time, from an ownership perspective. Expansion teams are certainly bigger headlines than selling an existing team, but almost as many new owners came from AEG and Hunt selling off their extras as from new franchises.

 

That's true.

He then tried to pay a general manager $8 an hour, or whatever it was.

 

I would say we are far past just "looking like solid ownership."

Look, they have not made many mistakes. Anyone who just "looks like" solid ownership would be quickly exposed.

 

So which had a bigger influence on Red Bull buying the MetroStars? Was it Kroenke investing, RSL, Chivas, or none of the above? Red Bull's major influx of cash seems to have done as much as, if not more than, all of the above to improve the health of the league.

 

You do realize we're basically saying the same thing, right?

Sure, the ownership standards have changed. But even back when RSL came into the league, ownership and a stadium plan were the deciding factors. Today, maybe RSL wouldn't have made the cut with the investors it had then, but a decade and change ago, MLS went to Utah because RSL had something tangible and the others did not.

 

RSL really didn't have a stadium plan at launch.

Stadium hopes, yeah. But they didn't have a plan. There was no reason to believe they would be able to get one done.

Checketts was what we call "Press Box Hot." They were desperate.

They're not desperate today.

It's very true that investor group and stadium solution (and, to a lesser extent, market size) are the best curb appeal a prospective MLS I/O can have these days, as in those days. But RSL is a bad example - just because they were the tallest of the little people at that point doesn't mean their dynamic is anything like today's.

Phoenix is competing with 11 other prospective groups for (for now) four slots. Checketts was competing with basically no one for unlimited slots.

 

That's why I said "(for now)." I think it's a bit of both.

I have always said I see no way the largest major sports league in the country would be a soccer league. Regardless of demand, regardless of talent pool, regardless of how you divvy up the schedule, there's a realistic, practical limit to the size of a league. AND that tension of the appearance of more suitors than spots works to the benefit of every league in every sport. (Realistically the talent pool thing keeps the NFL where it is because there ain't 32 quality starting quarterbacks now, just for one example, and there are guys in the major leagues now who should not be.)

But whether it's 12 for 4 or 12 for 8, somebody's very likely not getting in. (I have someone who's plugged in tell me recently that the spurned 8 - if it's 8 - could start their own D1 league, to which I said my standard "Good ********ing luck with that.") And that works to MLS' benefit.

But I also think 28 is a big number. 30 is a big number. 32 seems hard to grasp. It's not inconceivable they'd blow past 28 (at least soon). That's more stadiums, more coaches, more players, more inventory that I'm not sure can be reasonably created.

But, shit, I was happy at 16. I thought that was a nice clean, 30-game double-round-robin. I'm on record as saying, "Well, the league's been here for a while now, if you just now figured out you wanted to get in, tough shit." (Even though the market where I live is one of those johnny-come-latelies.)

 

Assuming the current model remains in place, they will either stop at 30 or 32 and there is a real chance that they temporarily stop at 28 pending the next television deal. As I said before, its about TV. Additional North American markets net a diminishing return after that number.,. or at least it's a split in revenue beyond which N. American pro sports owners are still not comfortable with. The NFL will only ever expand is if it is to a foreign market (and people in Hell want ice water but I'll pat them on the head for having dreams...) because that's the only move that would potentially increase their revenue enough to warrant a 34 way split. MLS is close to that magic number.

Scheduling also becomes a concern at a certain number unless that league is willing to either continuously add games or continuously add divisions. Adding games... once again a diminishing return as the longer one's season is the lower average ratings and attendance is. It's no coincidence that the NFL has the highest rated and attended average sports league in the world followed by college football. Adding divisions increases regional rivalries to a point until they begin to dilute them. A 100 team league with 25 divisions where you play your neighboring town 20 times a year would make you hate that rivalry. It's arguable that playing the Sounders v Timbers just 3 times per year instead of two has already worn thin on neutral fans as I see a lot more recrimination of the tilt than I did three or four years ago when most neutral fans had only positive things to say. Granted both teams have now won titles and MLS pushes them beyond decency at the fanbase which isn't the fault of either team. **(see appended)

The NFL works well with this since their seasons are so short anyway so it operates like a series of mini-leagues, but in the MLB,... hell even inter-league play got boring after awhile until they began rotating the cross-divisions. And that original idea came about because league play got boring. The NBA survives this because they don't emphasize it... at all. The only place where NBA divisions bear any importance is in the top three playoff seeds, after that, it may as well be window-dressing.


**my issue with this is how MLS promotes them. Bad Blood isn't what makes that rivalry good, it's the pride in their cities and their relationship with the sport. They both have the claim to the title of "Soccer City" and that's what makes it special. They were among the first in the US to truly embrace it and have thus carried those teams and legacies all the way to the modern day. It's pride that makes that rivalry, not bad blood,... thats TO and Mtl...MLS just doesn't get this. When you emphasize "bad blood" with Portland/Seattle (though more contentious than either team's tilt with Vancouber) it loses all meaning and can be perceived as being contrived or even fake. Look, I hate using the word "cringe". It's the most overused word which has subsequently lost all meaning. I cringed during the opening to this year's Portland/Seattle match. And I still love that rivalry, I just feel that MLS is slowly destroying it by pushing it to be something that it's not. It's not Old Firm,... once again that's TO/Mtl... it's more Liverpool/Everton or Cubs/White Sox.

WARNING: do not respond to this as it has sparked a new thread idea...

 

Please.

Let's see what would happen if everybody suddenly had four or more of these games dropped into your schedule. Not everybody is Cincinnati.

And more games - or more games in a series, however you split it - would actually increase the chances that the better/higher level team would advance. The one-off circumstance and the large home-field advantage this tournament and format offer would be mitigated if the format were expanded.

 

http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-...-deal-that-hinged-on-promotion-and-relegation

This seems to be another attempt by Silva of Miami FC to incentivise MLS to open up to pro/rel giving his franchise a shot at eventually joining MLS. Smart money remains on Beckham to eventually get his Miami franchise (whatever you think about the concept, Becks does have a contract with the league that would be hard for MLS to breach outright in favor of anyone else), which leaves Silva with few options. It was the Silva-instigated (I wanna say) Goldman-Sachs' report predicting the financial success of pro/rel that prompted Garber to release details of "interest" from Liga MX to ditch pro/rel. Both of these stories were propaganda of sorts with neither eliciting much by way of substantiation. So, having had the propaganda angle blow up in his face, he's now trying to essentially bribe the league. You have to give the man props for inventiveness.

What I do question is both his timing as well as his actual capability or that of his partners to make good on the deal or even be an effective deal despite the monetary incentives. As was stated in the article, it would almost preclude the ability of each team to arrange domestic media deals as is essential not only for monetary reasons but for the purpose of arranging media packages that effectively curry to their own markets and scheduling circumstances. Second, why offer this now, when you know the time for negotiating league-wide media packages isn't even close to being negotiated. There's no way in hell MLS signs any deal right now when there's very little predictive data on how much MLS could expect from growth by the time that their current deal is done. Yes 4 billion would likely dwarf anything they're likely to get, but if MLS get's anything close to 1 billion for a deal, then it's completely unlikely that they accept this deal as it does nothing to mitigate the franchise values (which is the real reason why team ownership holds any value to these men) of relegated teams. Even were MLS open to accepting such a deal, they'd first want to wait to see the potential offers in their next media rights deal, and then potentially how the rumored Canadian attempt at pro/rel is received. Third, I'm not entirely certain that when that amount of money is bandied about in such a specific manner, you seriously have to wonder how... well serious, the offer truly is. Is there even a framing that 4 billion dollar MLS world-wide media rights package makes any sense to the company offering it? Sure, pro/rel would make MLS an easier sell abroad, but not to the tune of 4 billion dollars unless you were offering that money to buy the controlling shares of the entire league outright; at which point one could put in place whatever rules one wanted.

So I really think that this was less of a bribe or attempt to make a legit offer and more of yet another attempt at propaganda. First, it puts in the minds of fans that there is money out there for a pro/rel league that MLS is "thumbing it's nose at." Second it puts the whole pro/rel conversation back in the spotlight. Third, with this timing, even an insincere offer never faces the test of validity since MLS is certain to say exactly what they did; that their current media rights aren't up for negotiation at this time.

As I've said before, I would love to see pro/rel in US soccer and there may well be a time when such a format may come to make sense for the league here. But ppl just have to be patient and let things play out the way that they will. League's don't do things until it makes financial sense to do so. Dana White said for the longest that women had no place in MMA until they suddenly became money makers and suddenly DW became their greatest proponent. This will take much more grooming than an out of left field spurious offer. Let Canada test the waters for how to make such a format work in North America (not including Mexico). Let the business aspects of pro soccer build to that point that it makes sense so that it can be a real success if it ever happens because if they do it now and it fails then it will NEVER happen again. That's all...

 

I wonder if Silva is now going to go all-in and get some DP-level players during this summer transfer window, eat the cost, and attempt to win the USOC. Then he could say to the USSF (and possibly FIFA), "See? We're better than most MLS teams, so you should force them to institute Pro-Rel."

 

Has nothing to do with Fifa no matter how many want that to be so. There is a very clear route to MLS for Silva, he can buy out Beckham or bid on one of the other open slots. The USSF is not going to force MLS open and even if it tried, it would end up in a protracted legal battle.

 

Why the hell is this conversation so much more civilized that the All Encompassing Pro-Rel Thread, despite @barroldinho being on here? Why aren't you arguing about the benefits of pro-rel to Saskatchewan tiddlywinks?

 

Because nobody cares about Saskatchewan tiddlywinks. Everyone knows the real skill is in the Manitoba league.

 

It wouldn't be a legal battle per-se. First off, FIFA's authority over it's member associations lies soley within it's power to grant certifications to it's confederations and, by proxy, it's member federations and leagues. Now, normally, FIFA allows issues of certification down the pyramid to be delegated likewise, however it remains within their power to decertify whichever entity it wishes since it is their show at the end of the day. They are a private organization under no obligation to keep any entity that they do not want any more than the USSF has to keep the NASL at D2 or MLS has to accept the NY Cosmos or switch to pro/rel. The only place where legal issues enter are in areas where existing contracts might be broken, for example if MLS denied David Beckham's Miami franchise since he has a contract with the league which essentially guarantees him one. Perhaps there are some joint ventures and rights deals that the league has with FIFA that would have to be renegotiated and thereby litigated, but of the powers that FIFA has to bend any league, federation, etc to it's will (which is basically all of one; certification) there is very little that any of them could do about it.

This doesn't mean that MLS will be forced to fold or anything, it simply means that it will then be cut off from FIFA and all of the benefits that that entails. There are monetary benefits and cuts of confederation profits and rights deals to organize friendlies, etc. That's big since it means that SUM would no longer be able to bring in Real Madrid or the Mexican National team who would avoid organizing such matches with entities in FIFA's doghouse. Even more important is that many players would also think twice about signing with a "rogue" league... giving up the privilege of international football... ie... no World Cup. (but the NPSL was pretty much just that).

However, all of this is extremely unlikely as most confederations would be naturally suspicious if FIFA overstepped and meddled directly in the affairs of a national league in such a manner, bypassing the confederation and federation entirely (although CAF nations might see this as a bit of justice as many times as FIFA has threatened to decertify their nations for things like appointing sports ministers that they don't approve of).

FIFA does and always has tolerated an aweful lot from US-based leagues vis-a-vis their own personal interpretation of the game including our own interpretation of the rules including the run-up pks, countdown clocks, but also damn-near nullifying the offside rule in the NASL era. It isn't legalities that stays FIFA's hand, it's the understanding that FIFA's ultimate goal and interest has been coveting the US market for the longest time ever. And they are not going to dictate to a league (any league) that shows any modicum of success in building a successful product here. They never challenged teh NASL on some of the things they were wont to do even when the league was in decline and they might have been more justified in doing so. They're smart enough to realize that it's better to "play ball" and allow the sport to grow in the manner that we're accustomed to than try to force American billionaires to do something that they don't want to do. They had to bribe us to start a league by giving us the World Cup last time. There's no going back.

Ultimately it is FIFA's prerogative to approve or remove it's own membership. But they won't do that, not over this at least. So that's that.

 

Manitoba would be even better if it could get its best tiddlywinks athletes away from curling.

 

For sure, FIFA wants the $$$, MLS and SUM bring the money, FIFA is not going to listen to some small clubs, the whole lawsuit is PR.

Now if this goes to regular USA court (where it would be dismissed IMO) and the court by some miracle were to ask to look at FIFA finance, then FIFA would scream bloody murder and may take some action.

FIFA is probably already upset our justice system had the audacity to investigate their corrupt ways, but they know that the money they can make form the USA is bigger than having a few execs being put in prison once in a while.

 

"For a dispute to be submitted to arbitration by the CAS, the parties must agree to this in writing."

My interpretation of that is that whoever Silva wants to arbitrate with, MLS or a federation, would have to agree to it in writing before it can happen. Can you see that happening?

 

They're not trying to arbitrate with MLS, it's FIFA that they're petitioning. In other words, they want FIFA to enforce it's will on MLS (without taking into account what exactly is "FIFA's will" in all of this ).Their goal is to get FIFA itself to put pressure on MLS to institute P/R citing FIFA's regulation on league membership composition being subject to merit and competition rather than other considerations. It was a rather vague statute that FIFA imposed in the mid-90s that was not made necessarily with MLS in mind, but rather directed towards some things that were happening in leagues that already had P/R who were allowing owners of certain clubs to buy out other clubs spots in top-flight leagues and essentially becoming "expansion" franchises without having earned their up the pyramid. What they're arguing is that this statute should be applied to MLS. Now FIFA themselves have not officially responded to this arbitration, however they are considered to have an established pre-existing precedent to it, having had disputes settled through this arbitration body before. For FIFA to ignore it now when they've used it before would be seen as a breach in standing precedent and limit their own ability to appeal to the court in the future.

So as FIFA does have means to hurt MLS if they wanted to and have a standing relationship to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, these clubs are gambling that they can force FIFA to exert it's will on MLS or at least put FIFA in a difficult enough position that they'll at least start trying to move MLS in that direction. As I said before, FIFA does not want to do this for many reasons. As such, I doubt that FIFA ignores this issue entirely, but will rather seek to redress this issue, by either issuing a statement or brief clarifying the intent of the statute in question in a manner that directs it's focus away from leagues like the A-League and MLS or they'll simply re-write the statute in a manner that absolves MLS and get it rapidly approved. Like I've said before, if FIFA was ever going to be moved to try to force MLS to adopt P/R, they'd have done so by now; especially now given the current expansion. People think that FIFA is just sitting there in their HQ bemoaning what MLS is doing here. In reality, while they may not like the setup of MLS, they're comfortable trying to diplomatically influence MLS while taking no active measures to coerce the league by force. In the end, for them, they're happy enough that the sport is growing here and will do nothing to risk that growth as the US has long been it's "Holy Grail".

What this means for the rest of the world is that other startup leagues, like the A-League, are also free to make use of this system. Make no mistake, had MLS not shown a predilection towards the current system; had it been the A-League alone, or better yet, some poorer league in CAF or AFC, FIFA would have likely reigned in on them with all of their power and threatened to decertify either the league or federation as a whole straight-off. And they likely would have had their way too. But this is the US, a market they had to essentially bribe in order to start a league. A market that brings millions of wealthy viewers to the World Cup and other FIFA-sponsored competitions. A market that will only grow bigger and more important in the future. A nation that has produced the finest players in the history of the female version of the sport and hosts perhaps the most important league in women's football. In order to exert force on MLS, FIFA would have to excommunicate them,... or at least threaten to. They would have take this massive financial force that is rising in the world game and cut them off, losing the market... perhaps forever. Kick the USSF out of FIFA and you show the American people that, not just FIFA, but the sport of soccer/football is everything that idiots and morons like Ann Coulter says that it is. If you don't think that there are people, who currently are growing to like and even love the sport right now, are equally as primed to reject it outright should FIFA ever resort to such a measure, then you have no idea.

FIFA is being petitioned by this arbitration, but FIFA is rigidly opposed to taking the action that this arbitration would seek for them to take. Even should this arbitration go against them, they will likely end up changing the wording of their statute in order to avoid having to enforce it. I say this as someone who supports the idea of P/R in MLS. I'd like to see it happen, but I have to acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling the investment placed in MLS by current owners should the system be opened to others who have invested nothing and rendering their own investments null. Granted, FIFA's statutes regarding the implementation of P/R do allow caveats such as those adopted in Mexico and South America which protect established first division clubs from getting dropped without sustained levels of on-field apathy over several seasons. If MLS were to adopt a P/R system, there is the idea that caveats could include financial considerations such as a mandatory buy-in as well as a stadium requirement in order to finalize promotion. However, FIFA's statutes on their face seem to prohibit financial considerations in P/R, although I've heard that Liga MX does have financial requirements or at least a certain level of solvency in their requirements for promotion. I don't know how true this is; I'd have to look into Liga MX's rules.

In the end, I think that P/R is something that should be allowed to evolve into our leagues naturally if it ever happens. Forcing the issue prematurely would likely be immediately chaotic and alienating for many who have bought into the league and become fans. Let Canada build on their idea of P/R in their own domestic league and show that it can work in one of the northern two nations in the Americas. Let D2 continue to grow and show sustained growth even after MLS hits it's true final number, be it 28, 30 or 32 teams. I believe that the best manner in which P/R might be implemented is for MLS itself to look at the landscape once they've expanded fully and see multitudes of additional potential markets supporting clubs around the nation at levels that would work in MLS and decide to work out a system that includes all of them. Should Canada show some success at P/R in the interim, then MLS' members might further warm to the idea. I think that the first way that this might happen should they come to this conclusion would be a two-tiered MLS that would then comprise the upper-two tiers of the US soccer pyramid or a two-tiered first division with "second division" teams carrying the capability of qualifying for the playoffs. In time, with this avenue opened, maybe a future coordination with lower divisions can then be established. Look, the NCAA resisted the idea of playoffs for an eternity until it became clear that such an idea was actually a bigger money-maker than the previous system. MLS would be no different, but that case has to be made and only the fans and ppl connected to the sport can make it. Force is not the way to get this done. Patience, time and commitment to the existing models (ie supporting the game in the US and the league) will gain more allies over time. Evolution is more thorough and lasting than conversion by force.