USL Expansion General discussion

There is no cap at this point. Why would there be? Teams aren't sharing any revenue or dividing their potential audiences, those are almost completely local.

The USL can just keep adding teams and dividing into more conferences until they run out of markets that want teams.

What do you think would be more than the league could handle? What problem would be caused by 40 or 50 teams?

 

To be fair, I did ask him about the Harrisburg relocation deal. Their main issue was that no one from Harrisburg even did the homework to see what was already but went straight to the city, who also ignored them, and began to trumpet the news. I don't know anything about these new rumors.

 

The PLA is meeting to discuss further expansion in the next few weeks. So there's that. And they already have 3 teams in Wisconsin

 

That should let NFC know that it is in their best interests to be proactive in trying to latch on to an incoming team.

 

I disagree SP. I think the PLA is a great fit, its local, has minimal costs to gauge interest and explore the market. USL or NASL might be too expensive to start out from the gate. Has Green Bay ever fielded a PDL or NPSL side even?

 

Nice find!

 

@SoccerPrime I just disagreed with the assessment that surely they'd look at USL or NASL. I feel for the situation and market size, they'd be more likely to look at the PLA, PDL, or NPSL firstly.

The investment seems to be primarily for baseball, as the Bullfrogs are part of the proposal, the multi-use of it does mention "minor league soccer team" and concerts. If the baseball is the focus at 2,500 permanent seats (up to 4k) and 8k for a concert then I can't see USL or NASL being a part of that picture.

 

Everyone is watching RGV this year and you could see satellite second teams become more of a thing similar to MiLB. I hope most everyone moves that way in the near future.

 

I actually hope everyone doesn't do it the same way, no matter what way that is. I like LA Galaxy keeping their 2nd team close to their first team ... SKC is doing the same thing but playing the games in a different part of the city, and with their season ticket base (they have a waiting list) it provides people that don't see SKC games a chance to see SPR games. If they can get a decent turnout for those games, I hope they keep it in KC. For LA ... they could care less ... having the "2" team training next to the Galaxy is the best way for them to properly develop, so I hope they keep that no matter the attendance.

If others don't find the development close to the 1st team as important, and marketing their brand to a satellite location, by all means ... I just hope teams get to do what they feel is right for them. No reason to pigeon hole them into anything. If some like the affiliate style then keep it!

 

I used to feel this way too. Having been to the Bethlehem Steel opener, I am not so sure anymore. The Union satellite team aspect was in your face, it did not like an authentic local team. The AAA IronPigs do a better job of feeling like their own experience irrespective of the affiliation with the Phillies. I may warm to it in time I guess. Will be interesting to see if the crowd holds up as the Union fans who drove in lose interest and it's left to locals. I saw several people I knew so there were plenty of locals there too.

 

xpost from cleveland subforum

 

An interview with FC Tucson's management contained some idle USL/NASL expansion chatter.

That's why the USL will continue to expand. Reduced travel costs beget expansion interest beget further reduced travel costs...

 

It's a common theme among the lower league teams if you read the other interviews in that series. USL's regional format makes the leap to the pros easier to digest for lower league teams, where NASL would require larger investment. And if someone's going to make that large investment, it may not make sense to them to partner with a lower league team.

 

Delving slightly off topic but still on expansion, does anybody know how large a USL franchise territory is?

 

It probably depends on the franchise agreement for each team. There can't be a standard mileage number or anything like that. The U.S. is too different regionally.

I'd guess that new teams claim a territory while presenting some sort of rationale for including various areas. Media markets are probably a big factor. The league then evaluates that claim and decides what they will allow. Really big markets like NY and LA usually have an allowance for multiple teams built in.

 

Within a 5 hour drive of the MLS team that owns it.

 

.@SFCityFC President and CEO Jaques Pelham just told me that their club is on track to move to a fully professional league in 1-2 years

— Evan Ream (@EvanReam) April 15, 2016

USL maybe?

 

http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/ne...cle_d2f4ca00-067f-11e6-8a28-0f9b4c81b8fb.html
Says nothing of moving up from NPSL into a pro league, but the stadium size would make it interesting. Dallas could easily have multiple teams in the professional ranks.

 

Kokomo PDL?

Dayton Dutch Lions have worked with Dayton Dragons in playing there, doing some cross-promotional stuff. Tulsa Athletics play in the former Tulsa Drillers stadium, that is set to be torn down after this season. There were tons of rumors floating around (nothing happened from them) that FC Wichita were going to play in the Wichita Wingnuts stadium

Not many, which is your point. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be amateur-driven when the baseball team is professionally-driven. It could be a nice place to start though. Definitely have facilities around that NPSL/PDL teams, or even USL teams can continue to partner up with existing ownership groups. That's what needs to continue happening to see lower-level soccer growth.