promotion and relegation*

Discussion in 'MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don' started by MetroZebra, Jul 27, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    All very true, but that doesn't change the fact that the teams outside the 5 in the professor's report are operating in the red and that it is serious enough that the federation is taking notice. Regardless of the validity of the private vs. public argument having almost $3 billion in debts and relying on one-time sources of income to stay solvent is not a maintainable system. Sure Barca and Madrid are making money, but is a majority of the rest of the league losing money really good for La Liga?
     
  2. fcb1

    fcb1 New Member

    Dec 18, 2008
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    First, I don't know if the numbers of this guy are completely right. It's this one guy.

    Second, Spanish league is, what, 100 years old. In all those years there were clubs who had problems and those who didn't. But the pyramid (from some 10-20 clubs in the beginning), survived and expanded, getting bigger and bigger. I don't know if this is something new, something catastrophical that never happened before, and not something normal. Spanish clubs had serious financial problems in 70's and 80's, and the government decided to solve them by privatization, which would guarantee the fresh influx of money. All the clubs except Madrid and Barcelona and few more became privately owned. So the clubs survived crisis which made government to intervene, is the situation in Spanish clubs at least one third serious than it was then? I don't know, but I doubt it. You may wish it is. But I'm not sure it is. And btw, just btw, the government solution seems to be wrong, at least if this professor is asked.

    Third, even if half of la liga goes bankrupt, there are clubs in the second division waiting to take their place. There is a great moving up and down in Spain, bigger than in England I think, some 80% of first division clubs entered the first division in this millenium, there are really few clubs (from my head 3 or 4), who are part of the first division for more than a decade. Anyways, it won't happen, but even if half of the first division goes down, it's nothing extraordinary, more than half of first division anyway went down. Even if the report of this guy is 100 procent true, at most one or two teams will go bankrupt in few following years.

    Fourth, I'm a bit tired to explain what I find obvious. And obvious is this: European football is succesfull. It has 100 years of leagues and competitions and numerous clubs to prove it. European football is an open system. Open system is succesfull system in Europe. It has 100 years of existance entering in every city, town and practically village to prove it. If you don't believe it, fine. If you think that the European football is at the brink of collapse, fine too. I'm going on sabbatical for a time now, and won't defend the obvious for some time.
     
  3. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the thread.
     
  4. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, the league is better off. It is viable, steadily growing, and doesn't have debt it can't manage (or debt at all).

    Portsmouth says hi.

    As opposed to the situation that your open system has created to blow up the USL, and run rampant financial woes in order to keep up "quality of play" all across Europe ... yeah I'd prefer it.

    It all goes back to walking before running. Had the NASL done that it still might be the top professional league in our nation rather than a footnote in soccer history. The MLS structure allows for the steady growth of the game while gauging how the country is reacting/accepting the league and sport on a high profile level. What a concept.


    Hey guess what, outside of China we've also got the most people in our country. Wow, what a coincidence. The success of the national team has dick all to do with anything in this discussion. And yeah, we probably did watch the WC more than the WS or NBA Finals. Those happen every year, the WC doesn't. I'd also bet that more people watch the Olympics to. That means nothing as well.

    And no, I didn't leave out anything for convenience. Had you actually read and comprehended what I put down, you'd have realized that I cited YOUR point in American soccer history which exploded the popularity to have it as (oh look you mentioned it again) the #1 youth participation sport in the country. You cited the NASL and a certain individual as being that catalyst, not me. My date and corresponding comparison of the WWE was spot on with what you provided. Oh by the way, it cost about 99.9% less to field a youth soccer squad than any other of our sports. I'm sure though, that that has nothing to do with it.


    Name something else to attribute it too ...

    Except for the fact that it was growing/surviving well before both of those things.


    Holy crap. Where exactly do you think our business culture comes from ? The same belief system and values shape and form every facet of our culture. It's all derived from the same place. It's this kind of statement that let's me know you're being ignorant/dense on purpose. If this mode of doing business isn't the American cultural way of doing it, then who's is it ?


    No, what I'm really hoping you'll do is exactly what I've asked. TELL ME. I haven't said anything about pitching it to anyone else. I've asked you to tell me. Is it really that hard to read/comprehend plain English ? It's also not about the owners of the other sports, but the MLS owners you'd have to deal with.

    Oh I see, comedy is your way of saying either you didn't get it, or you got it but just don't want to admit it. Fair enough. Unfortunately for you the sport and the business of it are one in the same in terms of the conversation you've brought up. Reality, you really should check into it some time. You call it handicapped, I call it not having Portsmouth winning the FA Cup and then being insolvent the next year.


    There is absolutely nothing to back that up, and everything to show that it isn't.

    The USL says yes.

    First of all, the constant referral to the EPL (and English Leagues) is because it is the biggest success of the model he's talking about (and often what he himself cites). It's also the easiest to reference. However:

    http://news.therecord.com/Sports/article/599293
    Dated September 17, 2009

    Highlights include:

    =Across Europe, 22 per cent of top division clubs report losses of 20 per cent or more of income, with a further 27 per cent reporting smaller losses. Barely half break even or make a profit.=

    =Of the five major leagues in the world, the Premier League was by far in the worst position when it came to the number of clubs with major losses, standing fifth overall among the 53 European federations .... Italy was 15, Spain 35th and France and Germany were among the best scorers= Hey look at that, the one with the model that most closely resembles the American model is among the best ...=

    And where exactly did I or anyone else say that our sports were perfect ? I've certainly never exhonerated the US from any issues. But that isn't the discussion that's being had.

    The ABA and CBA would politely like to let you know that you are incorrect with your assumption that Pro Basketball would be dead.

    There are also TONS of "minor" or "lower" leagues that would survive just like the ones you've cited for the rest of Europe. Thank you though, for your concern.

    Nobody is saying that it hasn't been successful, or refuting that 100+ year history of it. The bolded part is the key. We're talking about the USA, not Europe or anywhere else. Don't get caught in the ignorantly blissful mindest that the other guy has.
     
  5. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And closed systems for sports other than soccer have been successful in the US for just as long. Neither system is the solution to teams having economic problems and claiming otherwise is just foolish.
     
  6. fcb1

    fcb1 New Member

    Dec 18, 2008
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    You think Germany model resembles American model? You can't be more far from the truth. EPL with its commercialization and absolute privatization resembles American model the most. In Germany the clubs cannot have majoritarian private owner. The German idea of sport or pro sport club is as far from American idea as it is possible in Europe.



    The CBA supposedly folded. Do your leagues fold so quickly, you don't even have time to notice it? ABA is 10 years old, and here is the list of its defunct clubs:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_ABA_teams
    Incredible isn't it, 10 years of existance, and gazillion of defunct teams. Compare this list with the list of British clubs in crisis.
     
  7. blazindw

    blazindw Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You certainly need to read up on your definitions of "catch 22". I was clarifying someone else's point about Spanish clubs' supposed debt. But, who's saying that MLS is having trouble keeping up with their expenses? A lot of them may be losing money, but it's not much. Add that to SUM, and I believe that everyone's in the black. Controlling costs is easier with more teams having their own stadiums, not having to rent out huge football stadiums that they can't fill, having friendlies that bring in a ton of money (even with paying out appearance fees), having a very successful all-star game where they play a European team, and increased merchandise sales (helped by various DPs like Beckham, Blanco and Angel).
     
  8. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    USL not open. Open leagues include pro/rel.
    USL fails because clubs are trapped in lower div.
    In every country, teams are trying to get into the top division. In other major soccer nations, they can do this via performance based promotion. Not here.

    Sports United Marketing is making money. MLS is not. More fuel for the fire - let them dupe the Mexican Federation, but give us back our soccer and our pyramid.

    Donnie G said in 2006: "The question really is, 'When will our teams be profitable?'" Garber said. "At this point, we have some that are, which is a good thing; we have some that are close; and we have some that aren't."

    Has he changed his tune since then? Yes, a couple of teams have claimed profits. Show me where the league has declared profitability.



    OK - so MLS is probably making money, but nobody knows for sure. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Investors want in on Seattle success, when that is attributable to the unique mock promotion that they are, and Portland will be, benefiting from.

    In 1998, DC was crowned Champions of the Western Hemisphere. That was the height of international accomplishment.

    No surprise. Under the current model, no one team in MLS will be allowed to rise to international greatness, because of their priority on domestic parity that goes hand in hand with risk insulation, cost controls, and their insistence on holding on to closed league entitlements.

    Groovy if your league is recognized as the best in the world. Lousy in the world of soccer, where teams are exposed to international play.

    If you don't think salary caps, squad size limits, and all the other single entity checks and balances aren't controlling the quality of play in every club, all I can tell you is that is what they are designed to do. To keep soccer in a closed league cage, you have keep any one owner from building as great a club as can be supported in the interest of the league.

    Just like you have to keep one TGI Fridays from being too much better than the rest.

    Citations unneeded.
     
  9. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Works for domestic sports in which your league is recognized as the best in the world, and when your clubs are shielded from international competition.

    Fails for soccer. Every time.
     
  10. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If MLS is doing well, and making money, according to Garber, we should be able to move to promotion and relegation. I'm guessing that was just lip service?
     
  11. blazindw

    blazindw Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As I've stated numerous times (which you haven't comprehended yet obviously) is that pro/rel is something that can happen well down the line, but there are about 3000 things that need to happen well before that. MLS is on number 2. Just because MLS may be making money doesn't mean that pro/rel is ready. Pro/rel instituted now will tank MLS for the thousands of reasons that people on this thread have offered.
     
  12. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    "works"

    what is the objective of MLS in your eyes?

    MLS' objective, as I see it, is to survive as a viable league, and will be for the foreseeable future.

    The long term goal is undoubtedly to be a strong league - the strongest even. There's no chance at all of doing that quicker by bringing in pro/rel (which on its own has nothing at all to do with the league being strong, nor does it cause clubs to run at a debt) and losing the cap wouldn't work now either, unless you can persuade some very rich men to lose money at a rate which would worry Abramovich.
     
  13. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Unfortunately our country does not have the infrastructure to support promotion/relegation at this time. We'll continue to monitor this, but it will likely be at least 10 years before promotion/relegation could be considered," Garber said in a response to the question on the MLS web site.

    So you and Don agree.

    Since the new claim in this thread is that MLS is profitable, how profitable does it have to be to get pro/rel? What will MLS divestment look like?

    Obviously, in a league designed with the stated goal of producing parity (with a bunch of risk abatements thrown in for good measure) Being relegated would be just about the same level of crap shoot as the MLS Cup.

    So, you think they'll just let go of their closed league entitlements once they start making money?

    Dozens of examples of successful open soccer leagues.

    No examples of a profitable company willingly divesting into the independent clubs needed to institute pro/rel.
     
  14. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree with everyone in here on MLS objective #1:

    Make Money.

    MLS tactics to reach these goals are straightforward:

    Control performance levels of clubs from the league level, thereby insuring that no one club can rise to relative greatness, and no one club can fall to permanent crap status.

    How?

    By instituting salary caps, squad size limits, and owning a majority of virtually every club.

    Yes, separating owners and supporters from the team building process may be financially responsible. The problem is, it's not attractive, and it will never allow one club to rise to international greatness

    Why can't they all get together and run a nationwide chain of self storage units? How about health insurance - there's a good bet. Maybe even a chain of movie theatres? All are much more appropriate places for their business model.
     
  15. blazindw

    blazindw Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're willingly not listening, so I'm not going to repeat myself for your pleasure.
     
  16. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    USL was open and did include pro/rel. If you are going to dispute basic well-known facts then there's no point in having a discussion.
     
  17. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are two different answers to whether or not MLS is profitable or not and it depends on what you mean by MLS.. If the question is are MLS owners making money, then the answer to that is that most are making money off of their ownership of MLS teams, but that tends to be because of their involvement in SUM, non-MLS related events at the SSS they control, etc and not strictly because they are making money off the teams themselves. If the question is are the teams themselves profitable, then the answer to that is generally no. most teams lose a few million dollars a year because income from merchandising, ticket sales, tv/radio broadcasts, etc does not exceed the operating fees of the team.
     
  18. DCU1996

    DCU1996 Member

    Jun 3, 2002
    N. VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    USL 1 was open to USL 2. What's the point? USL has never been opened by MLS which is certified as D1.
     
  19. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    two experimental voluntary promotions between lower divisions does not an open league make.

    Though MLS is happy you've diagnosed the failure of the open league model with this anecdotal evidence!
     
  20. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The point is that nothing stopped USL-1 from marketing as a major league and signing players as a major league. There was no salary cap, teams were independently owned, and it was an open system that anyone could get into.

    You and soccerreform keep looking at that D-I sanction as some sort of holy grail, but how many soccer fans do you think know that MLS is sanctioned as a D-I league? 5%? 3%? If USL wanted to be the top league in the eyes of the fans they could have been, the only thing they wouldn't have would be the 3 CCL spots that go to the D-I league.

    According to soccerreform this is a soccer nation, as he tells us over and over (and over and over and over). Thus there must be money to be made, and nobody has ever accused American business people of being afraid to make money. And yet, despite this great soccer nation with plenty of money to be made, and an open USL league with no salary cap, the USL failed and a number of USL owners want to get out of USL and into MLS.

    Does that make sense, if this is such a great soccer nation?
     
  21. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So, even in the fiduciary paradise of MLS, where mediocrity is enforced to limit risk, clubs are losing millions? That's somehow more sustainable, and preferable than individual owners putting their clubs in debt in pursuit of the best clubs they can build?

    Can we please concentrate on the policy of enforced mediocrity by which they manage their losses? The single entity spoon feeding? The reason that plopping the NFL model onto soccer is like forcing Ferrari to adopt GM practices and procedures?
     
  22. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Excellent point.

    If D1 is no big deal to MLS... they should give it up and run like the original NASL - shield clubs from international play and leave the pyramid for clubs that want to climb it - all the way to the top. Leave the CCL spaces to clubs that are building to be the best they can be, not as good as the league lets them get.

    There is no better solution. Thanks for thinking it up!
     
  23. DCU1996

    DCU1996 Member

    Jun 3, 2002
    N. VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    99.99999999999999999999% of soccer fans see MLS as the major league(D1) for soccer.
    Anything else minor. They might not know about sanctioning, and don't need to know about it to recognize MLS as 'Major League' for soccer because that's the truth and the way it is.

    Having said that, USL has been very poorly managed and ran, hence the recent turmoil and birth of NASL. It'll be interesting to see how it develops.
    I'm glad for that.

    If USL does marketing as Major or D1, it's deception and false advertising.
     
  24. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You keep saying this. To which I say:

    Open system .....

    Works only when soccer is the highest profile sport and does not have any real direct competition.

    Fails when it isnt. Every time.

    Should be able to doesn't mean would be smart to, or are ready for. It isn't lip service, it is exactly what the situation is. Now is not the time, period. Just because a guy can have a 1000$ credit limit doesn't mean he should or that it's the best idea.

    It has much, much more to than just current profit levels. Had you paid attention to anything that's been said to you by multiple people you'd know that.

    Why would they "just let go" ? This directly relates to a question I've asked you more than once, that you've failed to answer. Why should they ? They've paid for that entitlement. Why should they simply let go of it ?

    WHY would they willingly divest in order to institute a system that they currently don't agree with, and currently isn't viable ? Why ? And no, because you want them to isn't an acceptable answer. What possible reason is there for that to be a good idea for them ?

    Why would I want want team worth a shit and 17 that suck ? That's just dumb. I don't give a damn if DC United owns every team they ever face if there isn't any other teams in the league worth a damn.

    For the same reason you can't comprehend that your preferred model isn't the one that works for sports here in the USA. Their business model is spot on for the United States. Just because you don't like it doesn't make them all wrong. In fact, with all of those thousands of leagues you've cited with your preferred system why don't you move and enjoy the football you want ? It's a free country here, and you're free to leave it to seek out what will really make you happy. Nobody is forcing the MLS on you. If it really is this big of an issue for you, don't pay attention to it. It's really not that hard.


    USL is completely open. In fact, the USL is a completely different league than the MLS. USL-1 was every bit a "division 1" soccer league. They sat atop the USL soccer pyramid.

    Imagine this, the majority of the teams that were eligible for promotion didn't do it because it wasn't viable.

    When you can't manage the debt ... yeah. How many MLS clubs are in trouble of going under, let alone have been insolvent ? And how many across Europe (let alone the 100's of other countries that play in this league model) ? Exactly.

    But you said you'd rather concentrate/focus on the game. Ha, you've spun so many times you don't even know what you're going on about anymore. Classic.

    Change isn't made by someone established giving up, but rather the ones that want change making it happen. The USL could have done that. In their own right they were a D1 league. That wasn't a big deal to the MLS because they were still above the USL in the pecking order. There was however, NOTHING keeping the USL from climbing that ladder. They had television and the exact open system you wanted. They has the outlet of the US Open Cup to make their case against the MLS directly. If they truly wanted to be a top tier league as defined in the manner that the MLS is, they could have done it if everything you are saying actually held true here in the US. It doesn't, and lo and behold the USL went caput. The USSF sanctioned the USL just the same as the MLS.
     
  25. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Blissful ignorance has many forms. Stuffing soccer into a closed model is just about the highest one. A century of failure be damned. We're gonna stuff it in there no matter if we have to limit every club in the league.

    Your solution is to accept the inferiority complex of some American supporters, and try to make money off of it. Mine is to adopt a proven model successful in many western cultures, in a country that has all of the trappings of a major soccer nation - except for the league that runs the clubs under the overriding assumption that soccer is simply too lame for us football people.

    Funny how this dovetails so well with the NFL mindset that there is a fixed number of sports fans out there, so any gain from soccer has to be a loss from one of them - unless we carve out a new niche of supporters who accept the inferiority complex and appreciate the fact that you're cutting them a break on ticket prices.

    Oh well, you can always keep Qwest half open to keep up lame appearances.
     

Share This Page