The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

What? Everybody knew that Mourinho and Pogba would not mesh at all. They made a handful of signings that were really good signings for a team not coached by Jose, like Zlatan and Mkhitaryan. You don't hand Mourinho wild, mercurial players with complicated attitudes and expect to see them succeed. Guys like Martial could have seen their careers effectively ended under Mou. Guys like Memphis Depay basically did.

Tangent almost aside, Mourinho is the one huge coaching name I'd never want to see in MLS, even in a rival. He ruins players and teams and fanbases, just for some immediate wins.

 

Mou on the move (said to be at his requrest), when it happened:
"Paul is one of the best players in the world and will be a key part of the United team I want to build here for the future," Mourinho said once the deal was official.
"He is quick, strong, scores goals and reads the game better than many players much older than he is. At 23, he has the chance to make that position his own here over many years. He is young and will continue to improve; he has the chance to be at the heart of this club for the next decade and beyond."
And Pogba: "I am delighted to rejoin United," Pogba said. "It has always been a club with a special place in my heart and I am really looking forward to working with Jose Mourinho."
The Guardian conclusion on the move: "Doubts linger about the strength of the new spine being built at Old Trafford by Mourinho (the sturdiness of the central defence is among the unknowns at this point, with much hinging on the recently recruited Eric Bailly). Although they have set a new benchmark for expenditure, their readiness to win a major title is questionable. But Pogba’s arrival certainly makes them stronger and more intriguing, which makes his purchase good business."
In retrospect, yeah, everyone should have seen it. At the time, "the purchase of Paul Pogba, who signed a five-year deal late on Monday night, as evidence of the club’s enduring power and prestige. United are not in the Champions League this season, but they have ensured, by adding Pogba to a box-office cast that includes José Mourinho and Zlatan Ibrahimovic, they remain more interesting than many clubs who are."

 

But I agree it is a tangent and apologize for my part in it, and I don't disagree with your final point. He'd be a very bad fit in MLS.

 

In 1989, the year the Earthquakes became the Blackhawks, the southern Bay Area got hit by the Loma Prieta "World Series" earthquakes.

In 2007, while the 'quakes were on hiatus, the southern Bay Area got hit by the Alum Rock earthquake.

There was also an Earthquake centered on the South Bay area in 1984, the year NASL failed.

As far as I can see they are the only 5.0+ earthquakes to be centered on the South Bay area in the last 35 years.

Also, Chicago hasn't been destroyed by a Fire since their MLS team was formed.

Coincidence?

 

If I were the Commissioner and could wave a wand over this whole argument of promotion and relegation this would be my plan. Make a system where just the top TWO tiers of teams would have pro/rel in place. It wouldn't be my first choice but it is, I believe, the only way not to scare off the owners- I mean "Investor-Operators" away from the league. Here's how it would look...

Two 30-team leagues with the MLS as the 1st tier and the USL as the 2nd tier. The bottom 4 clubs at the bottom of the MLS table get relegated to USL. The top 4 clubs of USL get promoted in to MSL, you get the idea. The NASL (if/when it returns) is Tier 3, the NPSL and others remain Tier 4 and so on, and so on..

The top 2 tiers only have ProRel and will be made up of approximately 60 teams. Who you might ask?? All current/future clubs of MLS, most of USL and even a handful of NPSL clubs.

These are the clubs that make the cut...

MLS:
Atlanta United FC
Austin FC
Chicago Fire
FC Cincinnati
Colorado Rapids
Columbus Crew SC
D.C. United
FC Dallas
Houston Dynamo
LA Galaxy
Los Angeles FC
Inter Miami CF
Minnesota FC
Montreal Impact
Nashville SC
New England Revolution
New York City FC
New York Red Bulls
Orlando City SC
Philadelphia Union
Portland Timbers
Real Salt Lake
San Jose Earthquakes
Seattle Sounder FC
Sporting Kansas City
Toronto FC
Vancouver Whitecaps

USL:
Bethlehem Steel FC
Charleston Battery
Charlotte Independence
Chicago FC
El Paso Locomotive FC
Fresno FC
Hartford Athletic
Indy Eleven
Las Vegas Lights FC
Louisville City FC
Memphis 901 FC
New Mexico United
North Carolina FC
Oakland East Bay
OKC Energy FC
Orange County SC
Ottawa Fury FC
Phoenix Rising FC
Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC
Reno 1868 FC
Richmond Kickers
Sacramento Republic FC
San Antonio FC
Tampa Bay Rowdies
Tulsa Roughnecks FC

NPSL:
Detroit City FC
AFC Cleveland
FC Buffalo
New Orleans Jesters
Jacksonville Armada FC
San Francisco FC
FC Baltimore 1729
San Diego 1904 FC

Hey, make your own list if you don't like it!

This is what the new pyramid would look like ↘↘↘



Why did I pick these 60 clubs?
First criteria was eliminating any clubs created for the sole purpose of just being a developmental team (think teams like Galaxy II, Timbers II, etc…sensing a theme here?). Next criteria was covering virtually all major metropolitan markets so we can have soccer from sea to shining sea! Great game day atmosphere and club reputation were also a factor.

Biggest reason for a closed model Pro/Rel system?
It proves the financial stability of franchising with the competitiveness of an open pyramid. This system also spurs player development this country desperately needs. It also means more soccer for more cities without the threat of relocating clubs.

So what do you think? Leave a comment below and tell me what I screwed up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Um, everything? I don't have the time to detail out all the arguments this doesn't deal with. Please read the threads in this forum, there's lots of good info (in among a lot of dreck) about what needs to be considered for a pro/rel system to even be viable. This...isn't it.

 

What's the advantage to the current owners in MLS. If they don't change the system, they will all remain in the top division. I know you said magic wand, but if you[re going to take something from people who have put up hundreds of millions, you really need to give them something tangible in return, don't you?
Also, why is the Philly affiliate part of your setup if you're avoiding developmental sides?

 

Not to mention...what problem does pro/rel solve that isn't currently being addressed?

 

I'll weigh in just for fun. Just because pro/rel isn't realistic for MLS doesn't mean there isn't an issue it could address. As MLS heads toward 30-32 teams I think we're in for a period of contraction and/or relocation between about 2025 and 2035, as the initial euphoria of fans of new clubs with new stadiums declines, and the realization that there are only two trophies to share among 30 some clubs sets in. Even the most liberal playoff system can't paper over the fact that there will be clubs shut out of real contention for years at a time. Fans of the big four sports seem willing to tolerate this. We don't know how many American soccer fans are. Pro-rel could inject some drama into the bottom half of the bracket.

As a thought experiment, could American pro - rel work with this contingency - the USL club (using the above example) could only move up if their ownership paid an expansion fee - for sake of argument, $200 million - divided between the league and the club moving down? That way only clubs with owners seriously interested in being in MLS would move up - and relegated clubs would get a cash infusion to help them prep for a push to get back to MLS.

 

Wait, so a club that gets promoted would put $200 million into the kitty. If they are relegated the following year (and just promoted teams are always favorites for the drop, even if they eventually avoid it), they get half of that back?
Is the point of this system to convince only really rich stupid people to get involved, or is it simply to reduce the number of soccer clubs in the US?
Today, drama in the lower reaches of MLS means fighting for the final playoff spots, and with a month left in the season, pretty much everyone is in that discussion, and at least they are every two or three years.
Isnt the drama you're talking about somewhat similar to a game of Russian roulette? I get that snuff films have an audience, but they're pretty much never of much appeal to a mass market, and rarely get into the Oscar discussions.

 

And if they're a true yo-yo club they follow those two seasons by being promoted again, and presumably paying another $200 million.

 

Then dropping back down, then up. At $100 million every two years, it adds up to real money at some point. I suppose the way around this would be to insist that every new owner be Jeff Bezos.

 

That doesn't sound like the promotion and relegation system we know and love.

I wonder what Burnley, Frosinone or Eibar would have done if they'd had to pay $200 million to join their national top-flight league.

 

You missed Rochester, a former MLS expansion contender. They'll be back next season.

 

MLS wouldn't work with pro/rel. It's just not plausible that a bunch of clubs signed up for one system would decide, when they realized that system was really working well, oh, what the heck, lets scrap it all.
How you might someday see MLS clubs in a pro-rel setup would be if someone else started a league full of really good, rich clubs and over time it looked to be equalling or surpassing MLS. At that point, there might be a merger. But the change will never come from clubs at the top. Why would it?

 

Exactly and that's what happened in England. The Football League opened itself up after the teams in the Conference turned professional and created a business case for automatic promotion and relegation.

There are two ways that pro/rel can happen. Either a federation imposes it, which I can't see happening, or there's an overwhelming business case for teams to adopt it.

 

Increased competition for one. Just one "top league" with just 27 teams for a country of 325 million isn't cutting it for player development. Pro Rel effectively doubles the size of our top league by at least giving many more clubs the opportunity for upward mobility.

And if we keep the Pro Rel system confined to just the top 2 leagues it can also offer the financial protection and equity that other leagues like the NFL enjoy and benefit from.

I know a lot of people reject any idea like this outright but I truly believe this can benefit all clubs as well as US Soccer.

 

why not simply keep MLS as a single league and create divisional trophies. With a 34 game schedule, that works quite well through 36 clubs.

 

I'd rephrase this as "what problem does pro/rel solve that isn't currently being addressed and isn't solved more cheaply/simply another way?

 

But having a long-term youth development program doesn't stop you getting relegated. Pro/rel encourages short-term decision making. Come January the clubs in trouble are going to throw money at marginal players in a bid to buy probation or prevent relegation.

To demonstrate short-termism, 7 Premier League clubs and 10 Championship teams have changed their managers this season, and it's only January.

 

Player development overall is coming along just fine. The variance is greater than I'd like but it is improving overall. You dosnt address this directly but if USSF cant figure out how to turn that into a competent National Team that isn't MLS' problem.

And if you want to strengthen development there are far cheaper ways to do it than adding a few dozen under capitalized teams