USL Split

Discussion in 'United Soccer Leagues' started by VBCity72, Aug 29, 2015.

  1. VBCity72

    VBCity72 Member+

    Aug 17, 2014
    Sunny San Diego
    Club:
    Plymouth Argyle FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Do you think it's possible that with just about every MLS team creating a MLS 2 team that the stand-alone teams might break off and form a new USL or join the NASL? Next season the count is expected to be 11 out of 28, hardly a cause of concern right now but eventually MLS 2 will outnumber stand-alones. What happens then?
     
    ManuSooner and Bisquick_in_da_MGM repped this.
  2. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What happens is that the MLS2 teams outnumber the independent teams... Absolutely nothing else will change. USL has already split into West and East and that will just continue as they get more teams.
     
  3. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    I'm not sure that MLS2 teams will outnumber stand-alones. Counting Cincinnati next year USL has added 10 teams since 2014 that are not MLS2 teams. Surely that pace will slow but USL would only have to add a few more teams over the next few years to at least stay even with the number of MLS2 teams.
     
  4. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    First of all, don't you think USL stand alone teams already played it out what would happen if the number of MLS2 teams outnumbered the USL independent teams? When they started this they had to run a scenario like that as a "worst case" if you will. It's not like this is 1o years down the road that they never saw coming, it's something they've assumed could happen.

    That means they'll either not allow it to happen (they can turn down expansion bids to future MLS 2 teams if that's a fear ... just never allow them to out grow the independents) ... OR ... more likely, they don't care if it happens. If it happens they can always "opt out" by dissolving the relationship (either by threat of pulling teams out or by renegotiating the arrangement between the two leagues).

    It appears that USL wants to be a regional league with MANY teams, share recourses and make the entire league better by having a connection with MLS. So far it's worked, why break that up now?

    It appears people worry about things that are out of their pay grade ... just be a fan and watch it all play out. The more jobs there are for US players, the more the entire pyramid develops, who care who owns what teams ... they're developing talent and giving more consumers the opportunity to watch live soccer in their own market.
     
    Jossed, The Irish Rover and BUSA Bulldog repped this.
  5. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MLS reserve teams had their own league. It wasn't deemed sufficient for development and was a PITA to administer. The MLS2 teams now only exist because of an agreement between MLS and USL, and they're in USL in an attempt to get young players more meaningful matches in environments that are more conducive to the entire experience than just the back field at 10am on a Sunday.

    What will be interesting to see is what happens if USL actually does attempt to gain DII sanctioning. Whether all of the teams they currently have could or would want to be at the Division II level remains to be seen.
     
    Jossed and Blando13 repped this.
  6. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is the most interesting thing to talk/speculate about, but until it happens or the league says something, it's just speculation. Wonder if this has anything to do with the NASL/USSF legal battle.
     
  7. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, SOMETHING has to happen. It's not just random hypothesizing. They WILL have to actually figure out what to do with those clubs.

    Also, there is no "legal battle" yet. A lawyer sent a letter. They have not filed a suit. THAT is a legal battle. One I doubt the NASL has the resources to actually mount.
     
    skuffdcmc repped this.
  8. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Something has to happen if USL is granted D2 sanctioning. They may not and nothing happens. But I understand, it's not random hypothesizing.

    You're right about it not being a legal battle ... I guess I'm taking the "letter" to mean a legal battle is coming. And maybe it's not, maybe the USSF reconsiders the increase in D1 requirements and lets the NASL die a slower death. And at that point, with no opposition, upgrades the standards. I personally don't mind the upgraded standards outside of the population requirement, that just seems unnecessary.

    The less blood spilled/money spent on this battle between the leagues the better (by means money can be spent on other things). The only way I see it happening this way is for the NASL teams that are rumored to be "not behind the letter" switch sides so to speak (San Antonio telling NASL they're moving to USL), Minnesota doing the same (based on the fact they're moving up to MLS anyways), the Canadian clubs going to a C-League in 2017. I think the Rowdies and Cosmos will be the last to do anything, and the real decisions come down to Indy and Jacksonville (as well as the 2 new clubs). Atlanta and Carolina have ownership issues so it's not like they have "owners" currently that need to "pick sides". I think that Carolina would be easier to find a buyer without all of this "league fighting" going on.

    Either way, I enjoy the "hypothesizing" as much as the next guy ... but I'm sure some don't want it to end peacefully, because that likely means a continuation of the "closed pyramid".
     
    BUSA Bulldog repped this.
  9. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know why an increase in D1 requirements necessarily chokes the NASL.

    They are, as presently constituted, best positioned to fill the role (which will ALWAYS be necessary) of a high-quality league presenting live soccer in markets that are unrealistic for MLS. They are not positioned to actually challenge MLS (and, to be honest, there is nothing stopping them from attempting that, with or without DI sanctioning from USSF, except for the teensy detail that they're 15 years and several billion dollars behind out of the gate.).

    If cooler heads prevail and they get these nonsensical notions of ( a ) getting through the courts that which they cannot achieve through actual business practices and ( b ) making up that gap in years and investment and actually attempting to be a DI league out of their minds, that would be preferable.

    People thinking they're going to "open the pyramid" are on crack. Because the very real problem is the one we keep coming back to over and over again: Most clubs are not going to magically become infrastructurally ready for the next level merely by virtue of winning, and investors aren't going to be in for a system where their investment goes south in a big way simply by virtue of losing.

    They're not going to send Jacksonville down to the NPSL just so Ottawa can go up to MLS when they are unprepared for it.
     
  10. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    (Oh, by the way, first question on cross: "Is it true that clubs can - and have - move up and down between the various levels of play in this country?"

    "Yes."

    "Nothing further, Your Honor.")
     
    Mikey mouse, Salvadanish and Blando13 repped this.
  11. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only option I could imagine would be the return of a USL2-esque D3 league to retain the teams unwilling to move up.
     
  12. QuietType

    QuietType Member+

    Jun 6, 2009
    Sacramento, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the writing is on the wall that eventually some sort of merger will happen with NASL, and those teams and the independent teams in USL will be the new D2, and MLS 2 teams will be D3.
     
  13. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While I think some sort of "merger" could play out ... I don't think that MLS2 will be split up from the USL independents, at least not ALL of the independents. The MLS teams wanted their reserves to play against other teams that aren't just reserve teams. They want those younger developing players to play against more established pro's. They won't give up that possibility lightly.

    IMO, the 2 outcomes if a merger happen are more regional play with an end of the year playoffs in a division of over 40 teams, or ... D2/D3 pro/rel that doesn't limit MLS 2 teams from D2. I think the independent teams will continue to make it harder for MLS2 teams to succeed and last in D2 if that happens, but I don't think MLS2 teams will be separated that easy.
     
    barroldinho and thomas19064 repped this.
  14. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, if there was a split I think you'd see a mix of teams remain D3 while others bump up to D2... Independent and MLS owned alike... admittedly, probably a bulk of MLS owned staying in D3, but I could see a handful maybe considering going up to the D2 level, possibly ones in different markets from the parent club.

    I think we would without a doubt see independent teams remain in D3 in some spots... Orange County, Harrisburg, etc.
     
  15. davidrpaige

    davidrpaige Member

    May 17, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I honestly can't see why MLS would be backing the USL for D2 status. What does MLS get out of it besides spending more money? Everything they want (more meaningful games and better infrastructure they don't have to fully run) is in the current D3 level, which is still better then the Reserve League they had before.

    The whole process of USL to move up to D2 is that MLS has to spend more to meet D2 status for their USL teams and many current USL teams (looking at teams like Wilmington and Pittsburgh) that would be left behind into a D3 league that doesn't exist yet (if USL goes D2 that is). On top of all this, many of the MLS USL teams are not run with any marketing to promote or generate any income (LA2).

    Where is the incentive? I just don't see what MLS gains by pushing USL up a notch.
     
  16. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why not? Maybe MLS isn't the ones backing it but are just "along for the ride" and wanting to support their independent USL owners?

    One reason (not saying I believe this) could be, that if MLS thinks that pro/rel IS inevitable ... then doing everything possible to drive the "renegades" out of the current pyramid (say, the Cosmos owners) the better. The best way to control any future pro/rel requirements may be to have some input in the D2. Help build up the place you want your teams to get relegated too. If you don't want the Cosmos and those types of owners to be a part of any future pro/rel, this may be a way to somewhat limit the damage they could cause in the future.

    A big reason I don't really advocate pro/rel right now is because the drop from MLS to NASL (or USL) would really hurt a lot of ownership groups/franchises. Some owners may have some bad luck with injuries or international absences and be relegated to a league they didn't risk their millions on. If pro/rel ever is forced on them, they'll want to limit the damage of that fall. They don't want to bring down the MLS to limit the distance from D1 to D2 ... so they need to help bring D2's revenue up ... and they are choosing to do that with USL vs NASL.

    Just a thought. Like I said, not saying that's what's going on, but it could be a part of the thought process of backing USL.
     
  17. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Honestly it's not like USL would need to rapidly change their operations to get D2 status... I would imagine things would stay largely the same. It's not as if D2 standards are some lofty far off goal USL in it's current state couldn't achieve.



    Current D2 Standards:


    i. League must have a minimum of eight teams to apply. By year three, the league must have a minimum of 10 teams. By year six, the league must have a minimum of 12 teams.

    Built in.

    ii. U.S.‐based teams must participate in all representative CONCACAF competitions for which they are eligible.

    Built in.

    i. In the first year, U.S.‐based teams must be located in at least two different time zones in the continental United States. By year six, U.S.‐based teams must be located in at least the Eastern, Central and Pacific time zones. (These three time zones are required because the majority of the large population centers are located in these time zones.)

    USL already has this built in.

    ii. At least 75 percent of the league’s teams must play in metropolitan markets of at least 750,000 persons.


    Not sure of the exact numbers, but I'd imagine it's built in already.

    iii. All league stadiums must have a minimum seating capacity of 5,000.

    Not all teams meet this requirement, they could always get a waiver or they could split the league into D2 and D3 like the old USL1 and USL2.

    iv. Not later than 120 days prior to the start of each season, each team shall have a lease for at least one full season with its home stadium.

    Built in.

    And there is also the financial criteria that I'd imagine they also meet with a vast majority of the teams.




    based on current stadium Capacity the following teams wouldn't meet the 5K minimum:

    Galaxy II
    Orange County
    TFC II
    Colorado Springs
    Whitecaps 2
    Harrisburg
    Pittsburgh
    Sounders 2
    Timbers 2






    I'm inclined to think they would revert back to the USL1 - USL2 model.

    totally hypothetical and going down the "fan-fiction" road, but if you base it on the 30 teams we already know about you could see groupings like this:

    USL1
    Rochester
    Lehigh Valley
    Charlotte
    Cincinnati
    Louisville
    St. Louis
    Oklahoma City
    Tulsa
    Austin
    Rio Grande Valley
    Reno
    Sacramento


    USL2
    East
    Harrisburg
    Pittsburgh
    Charleston
    Wilmington
    Richmond
    Central Florida
    Red Bulls 2
    FC Montreal
    TFC II


    West
    Orange County
    Arizona
    Colorado Springs
    Galaxy II
    Whitecaps 2
    Sounders 2
    Timbers 2
    Real Monarchs
    Kansas City 2




    and obviously expansion would continue.
     
    artml repped this.
  18. QuietType

    QuietType Member+

    Jun 6, 2009
    Sacramento, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well yes, sorry I didn't mean to make it sound like D3 would be basically a reserves league. There are markets that would be better suited to D3 and likely enjoy that status while larger markets would be in D2. My post did make it sound literally only MLS2, that's not what I meant to say.
     
    barroldinho and Blando13 repped this.
  19. davidrpaige

    davidrpaige Member

    May 17, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    No, D2 is not some lofty goal and most USL teams can or will qualify to move up to D2 if/when that happens. But still the question remains is WHY does MLS want, or need, to move their secondary teams to the D2 level? What do they gain from it?

    Even though it might be small money for MLS teams to invest into D2 teams, why would they want to spend that extra money? And if the MLS wanted more meaningful games for their new reserve league, why would they push for something that causes the system to split off and reduce the number of quality teams to compete against?

    It just seems that the push for USL to go to D2 is counter to what MLS's goals for investing in USL in the first place.
     
  20. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's a non-factor for MLS, I don't think anyone in USL would be spending any more money if they were moved up to D2 status... it's just a designation, I don't think much of anything else would change.

    I don't think MLS wants it one way or another, they are just a long for the ride at this point, the only real difference between D2 and D3 for them is the number after the letter D. Everything else is exactly the same and a non factor. The division is just a designation and not much more.
     
    Blando13 repped this.
  21. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why does going for D2 make "splitting off" necessary? I don't think it necessarily does.
     
  22. davidrpaige

    davidrpaige Member

    May 17, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Because there is serious doubts that Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Orange County, Wilmington, and AZ United have the financial backing to make the move up to D2. USL moving up a level is going to have some teams not make the jump up. thomas19064 conveniently left out of the D2 requirements list the ownership financial value/stability requirements. Unless USSF make some changes a few of the USL teams do not make the cut, which is a bigger hurdle then finding facility requirements.
     
  23. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I understand that, but that doesn't mean there will be a switch, it's completely possible that those teams move to the PDL until they meet the D2 standards ... or they've already lined up possible investors if a move to D2 is made.

    You are speculating why MLS would do something like back a split of the USL ... and you're speculating more for the reason of a need to split it.

    At this point, I think it's safe to say that you probably don't need to know the reasoning behind why MLS is in favor of this based on the assumption that one outcome will be necessary based on your knowledge of some net worth of owners you likely don't know their full portfolio's ... there are probably 3 or 4 levels of assumptions/unknowns/speculations there ... you're in too deep!
     
  24. USRufnex

    USRufnex Red Card

    Tulsa Athletic / Sheffield United
    United States
    Jul 15, 2000
    Tulsa, OK
    Club:
    --other--
    Presumably leading the charge to D-2 would be Energy FC, if for no other reason than to thwart Rayo OKC... and owner net worth would seem to work in favor of admitting MLS2 teams. Beyond that, I'd think USL would want to attempt to get all its teams to move up to D-2, simply to lessen travel costs?
     
    Blando13 repped this.
  25. VBCity72

    VBCity72 Member+

    Aug 17, 2014
    Sunny San Diego
    Club:
    Plymouth Argyle FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I feel like it wouldn't be that hard for AZU to find financial backing.
     

Share This Page