Because pro/rel fixes everything!!!! Also because there is no competition from more established teams in other sports. Are you really that dense? Domestic soccer is still a fairly shaky investment in the US. The only reason why American owners are buying European teams is because the EPL is to England as the NFL is to the US. American soccer as a whole is neither. For the most part, the big time players are only buying the cream of the crop in Europe. Nobody is unloading money on a League Two team and seriously planning to pro/rel their way to the top of the EPL. Given a choice between the (more or less) turn key, set costs top tier team and a fixer upper lower tier team that has to be upgraded (roster and grounds, typically) with no set costs or concrete time table to reach the top level, the smart money guys will always choose the former. It always amazes me how the NASL fanboys romanticize pro/rel. It's a system that works in Europe because there were hundreds of teams that needed to be organized when the whole idea of professional sports really got going. The lack of other professional sports also makes it more feasible. It does not work in places like the US and Australia because we started professional soccer fairly recently and there are (relatively) few clubs in existence that have been built from the ground up using resources that compare to the current top level teams that have existed for hundreds of years. It does not work here because pro soccer arrived long after the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, and even NASCAR had cemented themselves in the American consciousness. Soccer is growing, but we are nowhere near a pro/rel ready society. I'd wager that England will lose pro/rel before the US enacts it.
The big cities could easily support between half a dozen to a dozen each - but only if there were billionaire owners - like the billionaires that started all the NHL/NBA/MLB/ and NFL teams. I agree with you, pro/rel doesn't work anywhere that didn't have a huge soccer history of hundreds of teams like Australia and the US. All of the other countries of the world had 100s of teams going back a 100 years - you know like China (goes way back to 2004), Japan (goes way back to 1992), Korea (goes way way back to 1983). I'm sure these will fail at any moment though. But let's keep comparing it to Australia, a country just like ours - you know same population size and all.
If you look at how the population is distributed throughout the size of the country (especially in regards to where teams are located), USA is far more comparable to Australia. England, Japan, South Korea and China are towards the opposite end of the spectrum. As a geospatial analyst I had to chime in.
Billionaires literally did not exist when the Big Four were founded, at least not in the numbers they do today and those that did were not starting sports franchises (just as most today do not). The simple fact is that if there were avaiable billionaire owners that wanted to build a pro/rel soccer system- and lose a significant chunk of change in the process - they would have done it. the fact that none of these magical pro/rel supporting billionaires has ever stepped forward and done so is a pretty good indication that they view it as a terrible investment idea. Considering how many of them are shaky on investing in sports at all, that is really saying something. Since they have billions and nobody on BS does (to my knowledge), I'm more inclined to agree with their implied perception of the economic viability of pro/rel in the US than what anyone here says. Again, those that are purchasing teams in countries with pro/rel are doing so at the top of the table in the top leagues: ManU, ManCity, Liverpool, Arsenal, PSG, etc. More importantly, they are largely buying established brands (exept maybe ManCity) that already have global appeal. They are not getting in the trenches to do the dirty work; they are buying a finished product and trying to squeeze more equity out of existing brands of soccer teams. Apples and oranges. The bulk of China's population is in a handful of cities. The same goes for both Japan and Korea, both of which are smaller than a good number of US states. You are ignoring the Big Four (plus the NCAA sports, NASCAR, etc) that simply do not exist in any of those countries. The only realistic comparison you can make is Japanese baseball, I guess. I never said that pro/rel will fail elsewhere (except maybe Australia), I simply said that it will not work here. We are culturally different. We are demographically different. Our sports history is different. Our competition for sports entertainment dollars is different. Australia is more similar to us in terms of population distribution. They are also similar in the role that soccer plays on their sports heirarchy. Aussie Rules, Cricket, Rugby Union and Rugby League are all more popular and more established than soccer. All four have pro leagues with roots that were firmly established before soccer became a viable pro sport Down Under. But you know what? I'm not going any further. The dumbest thing about this topic coming up here, of all places, is that Virginia can't even get its shit together to 1. start the damn team or 2. build the stupid stadium. And this is far from the first - or last time - a potential domestic soccer team will face this issue. It's kind of hard to have pro/rel when more "affordable" teams like USLPro & NASL clubs cannot get going, isn't it? Good God, it just wouldn't be an NASL thread without someone wanting to beat this dead horse.
Well, hell, son, don't you get it? If there was pro/rel, Virginia would have a millionaire owner and a stadium because that's how it works. You institute pro/rel tomorrow, and by next week we're all eating Unicorn burgers and driving cars that run on salt water.
So you don't need a billionaire? I'm confused. How many have you discussed this with? You mean the pro/rel league that does not exist here? You're talking about that league right? Also - Do you mean American billionaires in the US? Foreign billionaires in the US? American billionaires in the foreign countries? or foreign billionaires in foreign countries? What does this mean? Is it like mind reading? Wait wait wait, There can be no exceptions to the evils of pro/rel. Were you just chuckling, or were you keeled over laughing, when you wrote this? Seriously, its curious. This might have some resonance if college football and basketball teams didn't rise and fall all the time. Where was Boise football 20 years ago? How about Florida basketball? How about UNLV basketball - oh wait, they were huge, but today don't even register on the national scene. UNLV must have folded and gone out of business, look that up will ya - everyone is on pins and needles worried to death about the condition of UNLV and UNLV basketball. 1 - Va Cavalry isn't hurting anyone except themselves. These hold-ups are preferable to letting them take the field to become another VCI Tampa or Phoenix Coyotes situation. If the NASL gets to 19 teams and Va Cav is still not up and running, but is instead holding up the progress of the league than you can call them a problem. You have this backwards. You're beating a dead horse. All I said was NYC could support more pro soccer teams.
"NYC metro can definitely support 3 clubs - probably more if we had pro/rel." I noticed you didn't mention it in another forum either. Your posts remind me of someone, can't quite put my finger on it. Hmm....
I'm trying to have a serious conversation here. How many teams do you think NY could support? This is serious stuff here, so let's get to it. I'm saying at least 12, easy.
What's up? No rebuttal? I thought you were talking to billionaires - love to hear what they have to say.
I never once claimed to "talk to billionaires." You came up with that ridiculous idea. Like most people, I observe what the billionaires are doing with their money. Other than the group that bought the Cosmos thinking that they would muscle their way into MLS, most billionaires that are buying soccer teams in the US are only focused on MLS. Minnesota has two billionaires vying for a franchise, one of whom wants to work with United's ownership to do so despite not (publicly) showing any interest in partnering with the team as it currently exists in the NASL. Considering the Red Bulls fail to fill (arguably) the best soccer stadium in the US, I think you are on crack. On paper and with no other sports franchises in play, sure NYC could potentially support a dozen teams. In reality, NYC barely supports the two it currently has. Look, I'm done with your pro/rel nonsense and I'm done talking about NYC in this thread. Your join date indicates that you are a newbie (although your "discussion" reminds me of a couple different people that used to be here). There are literally thousands of threads on BS that broke down and then were shut down because of posters that drag out this argument in places where it does not need to exist. This thread has nothing to do with pro/rel and even less to do with NYC. I suggest that you take that garbage elsewhere as most of us are genuinely interested in following what happens with the planned NASL team in Virginia - whether it finally goes forward or dies a horrible and embarassing death due to incompentence.
Despite the developer stating they are looking for new baseball & soccer teams, I suspect this means the end of the prospect of a new soccer team in NoVa. http://www.loudountimes.com/news/ar..._stadium_lease_looks_for_new_baseball_and_234
As I posted in one of the other VA Cavalry thread: There, I'm the designated shocked person because otherwise there would be nobody shocked by this news.
I wonder how long it will take NASL to admit that VA Cavalry is dead? I bet it will linger on as One Loudoun "casts a bigger net to see who is out there." You know, casting a net, to see who is out there, is always the best way to bring in a professional team. You'll get the same quality as the VIP ass-hats.
Wasn't there supposed to be an "official" update from the NASL on this team's status and that of OKC soon? Wasn't that hinted at recently?