I will keep the "twitter beefs" out of this only to say, I went there with the intention of being a PITA. This is because I've observed this vocal "advocacy movement" pestering people, hounding officials and in Ted's own words "getting in people's faces". Because they aren't my voice but present themselves to among others, Gianni Infantino as "The American Soccer Supporters", I decided to play them at their own game. When I saw the info they were peddling, I felt even more compelled to confront them on points the way they themselves do. The reason I raise this here (aside from it being relevant to the topic of pro/rel in the USA) is because I now know why they are absent from threads like this one. It's not "the Mods" or "the anti-pro/rel herd". Whatever they might feel they have to take on forums like this, they are more than happy to dish out. Ted Westervelt said on a Soccer Morning pro/rel special that he had been trying to draw the likes of Jason Davis (the host) out to discuss the subject for a long time. He laughed off the suggestion that the tactics of himself and those like him had "poisoned the well". It seems very clear to me that contrary to what they may claim, there is no interest in a debate or discussion. Ted rejects the concept of a two-tier pro/rel MLS system "because pro/rel within MLS is not pro/rel" and champions the "vibrant, global game". I point out that according to his argument on the two-tier MLS, the Football League didn't have pro/rel until 1987 and that this global open system had led to the biggest clubs having tremendous leverage over federations and their fellow clubs. The reaction? I'm blocked. An American fan of Rangers is complaining about the ethics issues of MLS exerting effective unilateral control over US Soccer due to voting rights being heavily in their favour. I point out that the Old Firm used the 11-1 SPL voting majority requirement to do the same thing in Scottish football for decades. Blocked. Others complain that parity is mediocrity. I ask if they agree that this is one of the best EPL seasons in years. They do. I point out that this is largely down to the poor-to-mediocre performances of the league's top clubs. Why is mediocrity acceptable when resulting in competitiveness in the EPL but not in MLS? Blocked. They've made up their minds (even though there are huge holes in the arguments they present)and decided that MLS is this terrible entity that must be fought. The only "debate" they* want is with Grant Wahl, Alexi Lalas and anybody who has a moderately popular podcast, because it gets them seen. Everybody else is "delusional", "clueless" and "not worth their time". But then again, at least they are sincere in their beliefs and aren't adopting a stance simply because it better suits their chances of getting an MLS team... * I'm not saying that there aren't those who are for pro/rel that don't have sound and reasonable arguments. @owian @Blando13 and @M among others, have certainly raised solid points and ideas on this thread.
I wasn't really following the discussion. As I said, I'm not virulently pro- or anti-promotion/relegation. It sort of seems to me that in many countries (even the big ones) they've settled into a pattern where it's the same clubs going up and down each season, so even that tempers some of the "excitement" of pro/rel. In Austria there is little excitement in the first place. It's a small country with a small league, and in most seasons it's just some straggler trailing by 15 points or so that ends up getting relegated, so there's no excitement anyway. If it were me I would advocate a closed league with the 14 or so clubs that have the biggest fanbase and the best infrastructure. Hard to imagine that not being a more popular system than the current one. But I'm not claiming that's a popular position or anything.
Indeed Sir. I was largely joking. You're one data point but those arguing for pro/rel are now enthusiastically pointing at Leicester as evidence that they were right all along and big clubs aren't entrenched at the top. Having said that, your view is interesting because I've genuinely never met anybody with that view in England. Then again, as I've said multiple times here, we need to be careful about holding England up as typical because the support for D2 teams and below is not replicated in that many leagues around the world.
Well it's presumably neither wanted nor needed in any of the larger countries, but I could see a closed league system being more beneficial in smaller countries where infrastructure and a dearth of teams with large fanbases are a problem.
Correct. What I do know is there is a constant discussion among Austrian soccer fans about the unattractiveness of the top flight (i.e. poor infrastructure, tiny markets) while so many traditional powers are moping around in lower divisions. Not to say any of them are advocating a closed league, but if it were to happen I would be very surprised if too many people would complain about it.
He's allowed to, I am not reporting him or comparing him to Hitler, or worse Donald Trump. Merely pointing out that calling 100,000's of people you have never met "moron's" including myself isn't particularly kind or gentle. Personally not a big fan of being called a moron.
Didn't change it to fix my data points. Simply said I do think those specific ones were relevant. You're so busy trying to argue about those you never noticed all the other ones I thanked you for. But that wouldn't give you something to argue over. The stadium by the Tony Romo's I mean Stubhub Center will occasionally cram 30,000 (always interesting that it's exactly 30,000 never like 30,012) in for a big match. Like Sir Beckham of Essex's first ummm "appearance". Nope same point as always. Fans leave when teams suck, same as they leave when the shiny newness is over. Yep not good for Liverpool or Chelsea, it is for a newly promoted team. And I would agree a better than 500 record and making the playoffs counts as "pretty good" for an expansion team. You want to run the numbers and show that more than 1/2 the MLS expansion teams met that criteria (and can even through the in the fusion and the Fire if it will make you feel warm and fuzzy) than I will concede that point. Here's the point. It isn't that teams have different number of games or shots within the same competition we are comparing across competitions. And yes all three shots are equal. But they would be MORE important if they only had ONE.
Well, I didn't see that his comment was aimed at you. Or anybody in particular. But thanks for the explanation.
In England its not a case of which is most popular, its a case of take away pro/rel and the league dies, the for and against percentage wise is for pro/rel 100% against pro/rel 0%, having pro/rel has gone a long way to making English football the most popular sporting league on the planet, not having pro/rel has meant the NFL is unknown outside the USA despite thousands of millions of pounds being spent over decades in trying to grow the sport outside the US. Bearing all of this in mind why is it so hard to imagine why it is that pro/rel is the more popular system in the world?
I'm late to the party and, like I said, not that invested in this debate, but have you already explained why? I don't understand the correlation with the NFL at all. I would say there are about a million reasons why Europeans don't particularly want to watch the NFL, and I wouldn't have guessed that pro/rel was one of them.
Look I can understand if pro/rel would not be a good thing for soccer in the USA, there are BIG differences between the UK and the US when it comes to sports, the sheer size of the US makes a league structure like the English (and other European) ones un viable, I can see that. In the US people seem to like the idea of closing off a league so that the same clubs are in it every year, in the UK the thought horrifies us, I can see that too. I believe in the US things should be done to make the game work in the US first and foremost because that is the most important thing, do I think the appeal of US soccer would be much greater in the rest of the world if they had a pro/rel type of league, I'm sorry but yes I do but what would the point be if it kills the game in the US itself! What I really don't understand are people claiming that scrapping pro/rel in the UK would make the sport more popular IN the UK, this is just folly.
I'm just trying to understand your thought process: you're saying the league would die because people would lose interest? Is that the assertion?
Yes pretty much, you see pro/rel is a BIG part of the game here, take away pro/rel and you take away half the competition, the sport here flows across the seasons, being relegated appears to me to be the death knell in the eyes of an American where as in the UK it is considered a 'setback' building a team is not something to be done in just one season here but it is continuous over many years, there seems to be a preference for starting again every new season over there, it would cause an awful lot of damage here if the leagues tried to 'close shop', like I said I am beginning to realise just how differently the ideas of sport is each side of the pond, there has to be a reason why American sports don't travel well and for me that's a big part of it.
I'm not English (well, I am on paper) and I don't claim to think like an Englishman. I'm passably familiar with English soccer and I'm dubious that it would be the death knell for the league if Crystal Palace and QPR didn't get to trade places every year, but I'm sure I might be wrong.
Have a look at exactly who has appeared in the Premier League in the last 20 years and look at who has been relegated out of all the current Premier League clubs, you may be surprised, its certainly a LOT more than just Crystal Palace and QPR, then you may get the idea as to why we love the system here, incidently without promotion Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers or the next Champions whether its Leicester City or Spurs would never have won the league because they have ALL been promoted from the second division (or lower).
Most of those clubs were promoted many decades ago. It's one thing to claim that the EPL would never have reached its current status without promotion/relegation, but you are arguing that the league would actually die if it were dispensed with, and I find that highly dubious. Almost all of the most popular clubs in England already play in the EPL, and the absence of Nottingham Forest and Leeds (for example) hasn't done anything to hamper the league's growth. Like I said, I'm not advocating doing away with promotion/relegation in the Premier League. I have no problem with it, but like I said, I'm dubious that its popularity would suffer tangibly without it.
It wouldn't harm the premier league too much, but it'd crap all over the rest of the game. There probably aren't too many examples of the aftermath of a league closing up. I know in Australia, the expansion of the VFL nationwide had a really bad impact on the other Aussie Rules State leagues. Rugby League, which went to a closed structure, has recently re-opened up, albeit with an 8 team mini-league system rather than direct pro/rel. We also have a story today in Rugby League of a club owner threatening to take the league to court if they dock points for his club's salary cap infringements - and it's supposed to be America that's known for its litigation.
This I can believe. In Austria the game is in such a sorry state that I think it would probably help. There aren't more than about 16 clubs with the potential to operate soundly as professional clubs in the first place. And if some tiny village no longer has the prospect to some day play in the first division? Eh, not that big of a deal, in my opinion.
Not necessarily. It's more that the teams aren't there at the right levels to make for a cohesive pyramid. If Torquay were the best team outside the Premiership, there would be little value in promoting them or relegating a top flight club to play in that division. There's also the fact that it's not a familiar system. Now I've never said it can't work. There are just tremendous risks in trying it out and no certainty that if it was okay that there would be serious benefits. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to attempt. I will state with a great deal of confidence that it wouldn't. While there are those that complain about the lack of pro/rel, the biggest complaint by far is that the standard isn't high enough. Simply changing the format wouldn't make those people change their minds. Though in my experience, what those people tend to deem "acceptable" is a bit unrealistic. If its not the Premiership or La Liga, it's "mediocre". I think it's less that they don't travel well (NFL has little issue selling tix in London and one of my best friends used to hold Superbowl Parties at 3:00am, Basketball has a decent following in Europe, Baseball is big in Cuba and parts of Asia) and more that football travels very well and that British influence spread it at the best time possible. Regardless, I believe its the sport itself that is popular and that the league structure has little to do with it. After all, second divisions aren't really all that popular in a lot of other countries. Serie B averaged an attendance of 7k last season. That's what some AAA baseball teams average.